England have won their second warm up match, with the Pakistan Cricket Board XI crumbling to a 100 run defeat at the hands of the-best-team-in-the-world(TM). The big story from the game concerns Monty Panesar, who certainly put forward his case for test selection with 8 wickets in the match. Monty hasn't played tests since THAT game at Cardiff in 2009, but has he given himself a shot at getting into England's XI for the first test starting on Tuesday?
Common cricketing logic dictates that a team touring the subcontinent (yes, this isn't actually the subcontinent, but the pitches will be close enough) play two spinners, which England probably want to do. However, the selectors lives are made much harder with the lack of a genuine all-rounder. If there was a Flintoff style player who is good enough to bat in the top seven as well as being a test-class bowler, then Monty would happily slip into the team alongside Swann, Anderson and Broad, with Eoin Morgan the unlucky batsman to miss out. Sadly this is not the case. England's selection policy has been reserved to say the least over the past few years, with Andy Flower still bearing the mental scars of the horrific Ashes test at Headingley in 2009 where England played five bowlers, had no backbone to their batting, and collapsed miserably. Broad has developed as a batsman (the most recent game against Pakistan where he got 169 is testament to that) but doubts remain as to whether he's consistent enough as a test number seven. While he did score runs against India, that was the first time in a long while that he done anything with the bat, and moving him up the order (especially given Panesar's notorious inability with the blade) could be a recipe for disaster. Seeing as the closest thing England have to a proper all-rounder in Tim Bresnan will be watching the series from the comfort of The North, Flower will be very reticent in vastly altering the shape of the team to accommodate an extra spinner.
Another option would be to play only two seamers, with the dual spin of Panesar and Swann, as they did in the warm-up game (with Tremlett and Onions playing the roles of Anderson and Broad). While there would be a lot of testing spin, rotating the two fast bowlers would be tricky, especially in the new-ball period which seems to offer a lot out in the UAE. England no longer have the handy holding overs of Paul Collingwood to toss the ball to, which would make this option a no-goer as well.
The third way to get Monty back into the England team would be to play him instead of Graeme Swann. Dissenting voices of Swann have mentioned his lack of wickets over the last 12 months, but surely dropping the-best-spinner-in-the-world(TM) would be wrong? Yes, Swann hasn't taken many wickets recently, but that's mainly because the fast bowlers have done the majority of the damage on pretty green pitches. When Swann has needed to step up on a final day (Adelaide v Australia, The Oval v India), he's made match-winning performances to seal victories. Besides, dropping a key player would be very un-England, where the success has come from consistent selection, backing their players, and allowing those in poor trots to come good. Swann may not be in a bad trot, but he hasn't dominated a series in a while, but on the first tour with turning pitches since he decimated Bangladesh two years ago, Swann has the chance to tear them apart, again.
All in all, Monty Panesar won't play. As much as playing two spinners is important in these conditions, there isn't really any way (short of calling up Samit Patel, which they should have done in the first place) of getting two spinners into the team without sacrificing a batsman or a fast bowler. While Panesar took the wickets to win the game, the most important wicket of the match was that of Fawad Alam, who was caught Trott bowled Pietersen. If England go in with only one frontline spinner, Kevin Pietersen will have to turn his arm over a fair bit, and that wicket will give Flower, Strauss and the selectors confidence that he can do his bit. Whether or not they think that after the first test remains to be seen...
Showing posts with label Bressy Lad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bressy Lad. Show all posts
Friday, 13 January 2012
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, 6 September 2011
Cook Stakes A Claim For The T20s
You can never write off Alastair Cook. He just has an innate desire to prove people wrong, going about his business quietly, effectively, and at a mind-numbing level of boring. After the talk of dropping him from the test side last summer, he then went on to have the winter to end all winters in Australia. Booted out of the ODI team, he comes back in, as captain, and makes stacks upon stacks of runs against Sri Lanka, pausing only to stick two fingers up at Michael Atherton everytime he got to yet another milestone. Only a return to the T20 team, which he was written off for long ago stands between Cook and the world domination of being the best batsman in all three formats of the game.
The rain affected ODI at the Rose Bowl was the perfect opportunity to show the selectors that he can play the shortest form. He already has a T20 hundred, don't you know. Faced with a potentially tough chase of 188, Cook carried his bat, making an unbeaten 80 off just 63 balls. He even hit a six.
As match-winning as it was, I still just don't see Alastair Cook as a T20 player. The Indian attack was woefully one-paced, and didn't offer much resistance to Cook's relentless dabs into the on-side. And while it was scored at a fairly decent lick (a strike rate of 127 isn't the best, but he was no stick in the mud), he just didn't score many boundaries. His 50 came up off 38 balls, and only included three fours (and that worldy of a six). He ran the ones hard and the twos harder, and while that should be applauded, against better fielding sides than a cold bunch of Indian second teamers, he won't be able to milk it as easily as he did. Cook will want to open - which means batting in the powerplay, and that means finding gaps and hitting boundaries. England's World T20 win was based on Lumb and Kieswetter getting them off to a flyer early, before big hitters came in and carried on the good work. The fact of the matter is that there are far better candidates to blaze it around at the top of the order than Alastair Cook. Cook would also expect to come in and captain, and judging by some of the odd decisions (Dernbach 5 overs for 49, Bresnan 4 overs for 43 yet Jimmy Anderson who bowled 3 overs for just 11 isn't seen again after a superb opening spell) he may not be best suited to do that either.
However, if watching Alastair Cook over the past year has taught me anything, it's to never write off Alastair Cook. He clearly believes he has a future as an international T20 player, so he will try his damndest to impress on the selectors that he should be playing in T20s for England. Cook is in the middle of a run of form that suggests he could score runs in any situation or in any format, and the unbeaten 80, as unglamourous and unflashy as it was may go some way to showing the powers that be that he should be in England's T20 team. Whether Stuart Broad, who was given the captaincy assuming Cook wouldn't get into the T20 team agrees or not is a different matter...
The rain affected ODI at the Rose Bowl was the perfect opportunity to show the selectors that he can play the shortest form. He already has a T20 hundred, don't you know. Faced with a potentially tough chase of 188, Cook carried his bat, making an unbeaten 80 off just 63 balls. He even hit a six.
As match-winning as it was, I still just don't see Alastair Cook as a T20 player. The Indian attack was woefully one-paced, and didn't offer much resistance to Cook's relentless dabs into the on-side. And while it was scored at a fairly decent lick (a strike rate of 127 isn't the best, but he was no stick in the mud), he just didn't score many boundaries. His 50 came up off 38 balls, and only included three fours (and that worldy of a six). He ran the ones hard and the twos harder, and while that should be applauded, against better fielding sides than a cold bunch of Indian second teamers, he won't be able to milk it as easily as he did. Cook will want to open - which means batting in the powerplay, and that means finding gaps and hitting boundaries. England's World T20 win was based on Lumb and Kieswetter getting them off to a flyer early, before big hitters came in and carried on the good work. The fact of the matter is that there are far better candidates to blaze it around at the top of the order than Alastair Cook. Cook would also expect to come in and captain, and judging by some of the odd decisions (Dernbach 5 overs for 49, Bresnan 4 overs for 43 yet Jimmy Anderson who bowled 3 overs for just 11 isn't seen again after a superb opening spell) he may not be best suited to do that either.
However, if watching Alastair Cook over the past year has taught me anything, it's to never write off Alastair Cook. He clearly believes he has a future as an international T20 player, so he will try his damndest to impress on the selectors that he should be playing in T20s for England. Cook is in the middle of a run of form that suggests he could score runs in any situation or in any format, and the unbeaten 80, as unglamourous and unflashy as it was may go some way to showing the powers that be that he should be in England's T20 team. Whether Stuart Broad, who was given the captaincy assuming Cook wouldn't get into the T20 team agrees or not is a different matter...
Monday, 15 August 2011
Bunny's Back
Way back in September 2010, I wrote this about Graham Onions. Bunny's always been a personal favourite of mine, whether it's for smearing Aussie stumps with fine swing bowling or defiantly blocking out to save games in South Africa. Onions had forced his way into the England side thanks to some excellence at county level, and had just about got himself into England's first choice test eleven. But disaster struck in the form of a back injury that ruled him out for a season just before the Bangladesh tour, and England moved on since then.
It's fair to say that since Onions last donned an England shirt things have changed. First came Steve Finn, who raced to 50 test wickets in the fastest time possible. Then Chris Tremlett, who's international redemption has seen him become one of the most feared fast bowlers in the world. And then Tim Bresnan, who has turned from bits and pieces seamer to a genuine test all-rounder who averages 45 with the bat and 24 with the ball. And while Onions has been out injured, England moved from also-rans to Ashes winners and World Number Ones. He couldn't have picked a worse time to miss, as England had quite clearly moved on from him.
But, they haven't. With the fourth test against India being quite the dead rubber, it seems that Jimmy Anderson's slight niggle won't be risked. So into the squad comes Graham Onions, the forgotten man of England's success.
A similiar sort of situation happened back the last time England were any good - the heady days of the 2005 Ashes. Simon Jones, who'd been a key quarter of England's fearsome fast four broke down in the fourth test at Trent Bridge, with what proved to be a quite serious injury. In the time it had taken for Jones to get back on a field and prove his fitness, England had moved a long way from the Welshman, and he remained just a memory as England floundered in the post-2005 failures.
Luckily for Onions, he hasn't been forgotten, and is back in the squad for the test starting on Thursday. He may or may not get selected, as the pecking order system used probably has Steven Finn still ahead of him, but it shows he is right back on England's radar. At a time when England's fast bowling pool couldn't be stronger, if Onions comes in and seizes the opportunity as Finn, Tremlett and Bresnan have, there could be quite a few headaches for Andy Flower between now and England's next test appointment in the UAE in the new year.
It's fair to say that since Onions last donned an England shirt things have changed. First came Steve Finn, who raced to 50 test wickets in the fastest time possible. Then Chris Tremlett, who's international redemption has seen him become one of the most feared fast bowlers in the world. And then Tim Bresnan, who has turned from bits and pieces seamer to a genuine test all-rounder who averages 45 with the bat and 24 with the ball. And while Onions has been out injured, England moved from also-rans to Ashes winners and World Number Ones. He couldn't have picked a worse time to miss, as England had quite clearly moved on from him.
But, they haven't. With the fourth test against India being quite the dead rubber, it seems that Jimmy Anderson's slight niggle won't be risked. So into the squad comes Graham Onions, the forgotten man of England's success.
A similiar sort of situation happened back the last time England were any good - the heady days of the 2005 Ashes. Simon Jones, who'd been a key quarter of England's fearsome fast four broke down in the fourth test at Trent Bridge, with what proved to be a quite serious injury. In the time it had taken for Jones to get back on a field and prove his fitness, England had moved a long way from the Welshman, and he remained just a memory as England floundered in the post-2005 failures.
Luckily for Onions, he hasn't been forgotten, and is back in the squad for the test starting on Thursday. He may or may not get selected, as the pecking order system used probably has Steven Finn still ahead of him, but it shows he is right back on England's radar. At a time when England's fast bowling pool couldn't be stronger, if Onions comes in and seizes the opportunity as Finn, Tremlett and Bresnan have, there could be quite a few headaches for Andy Flower between now and England's next test appointment in the UAE in the new year.
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.
Monday, 8 August 2011
Podcast - Stuart Broad's Vaseline
Subscribe to the Short Midwicket Podcast on iTunes!
Or, download this via Podbean
England's win at Trent Bridge was a victory for tenacity, and Will dissected just why England are so damn good. The various controversies are looked at, from Bell's run-out to the DRS, and even to Vase-gate, as Will looks at whether the spirit of cricket is indeed alive and well. India are all injured, so will looks at why, as well as working out whether Tim Bresnan really is the greatest all-rounder in the world and if England should go in to Edgbaston with only six batsmen.
Or, download this via Podbean
England's win at Trent Bridge was a victory for tenacity, and Will dissected just why England are so damn good. The various controversies are looked at, from Bell's run-out to the DRS, and even to Vase-gate, as Will looks at whether the spirit of cricket is indeed alive and well. India are all injured, so will looks at why, as well as working out whether Tim Bresnan really is the greatest all-rounder in the world and if England should go in to Edgbaston with only six batsmen.
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.
Monday, 1 August 2011
England's Win a Victory for Tenacity
Test cricket is more than just about having a good technique or a solid defence. It's about mental fortitude and having the concentration for fifteen two-hour sessions of intense cricket where you have to keep your eye on the ball. Games of test cricket can be won and lost in an instant, and the best teams are those who are always switched on and are as such able to win those games at any given moment.
Having a team of good cricketers does go a long way, but the great sides of test cricket are the teams full of "winners" - those who refuse to give up when faced with defeat, or allow opposing teams to rise from difficult situations. England are certainly a team of winners. At 88/6 and 124/8 on the first afternoon, it would have been easy to fold and put up a score that would almost certainly be a losing one. But the grit and determination of the lower-order saw them to 221; not an awful score given the tough scoring conditions. India had overtaken that score with only four wickets down, and looked set to build a sizeable lead. But England fought back, and led by Stuart Broad taking 5 wickets for 0 runs in 18 balls, were reduced to a lead of only 67.
Even when things weren't going their way during that Indian first innings, England kept fighting. They never stopped believing that they could cause an Indian collapse, and it only needed the spark of Stuart Broad to make it happen. Compare that to the lifeless display of bowling from India at the back end of England's second innings, where runs were being gifted away and nobody seemed to bothered. The impressive Praveen Kumar aside, it was a completely gutless and embarrassing display, as Prior, Bresnan and Broad all cashed in with the easiest runs in test cricket they will ever make. India had completely given up - remarkable for a team that boasts some of the greatest talents to ever grace the game, are World Champions, and the current holders of the world number one ranking. That seems as though it's going to be meekly surrendered too. Bell's innings was full of class, and even allowing for his reprieve, India still were in with a chance. Bell departed at 323/4, a lead of only 256. Had they got their tails up and stuck into England, they could have been looking at a chase of not much more than 300. Given that Bell showed batting wasn't a total nightmare on that pitch, and that they possess Dravid, Laxman and Tendulkar, India were still in with a big chance of winning that game. You know England, or indeed, any team of winners would have at least given it a crack. Instead, they ceded another 200 runs as England's tail took it well out of their reach. By the end, it was men against boys. They didn't even bother trying to reach the victory target of 478.
India are quite clearly a team of class individual players, all with skills that on their day make them world-class performers. However, when the going got tough, they didn't get going at all, instead retreating so meekly it made England's march to victory almost painful to watch. The hosts, on the other hand are a side that relish the big battles, and they invariably win them. To win the game by 319 runs given the perils of the first two days certainly shows the character of this current England team. India earned the number one test ranking, but have underperformed massively so far, with England taking full advantage. England are now odds-on to take over that coveted number one ranking, and having seen the way they've played in the first two tests of the series, you'd fancy them holding onto the position for a very long time to come.
Having a team of good cricketers does go a long way, but the great sides of test cricket are the teams full of "winners" - those who refuse to give up when faced with defeat, or allow opposing teams to rise from difficult situations. England are certainly a team of winners. At 88/6 and 124/8 on the first afternoon, it would have been easy to fold and put up a score that would almost certainly be a losing one. But the grit and determination of the lower-order saw them to 221; not an awful score given the tough scoring conditions. India had overtaken that score with only four wickets down, and looked set to build a sizeable lead. But England fought back, and led by Stuart Broad taking 5 wickets for 0 runs in 18 balls, were reduced to a lead of only 67.
Even when things weren't going their way during that Indian first innings, England kept fighting. They never stopped believing that they could cause an Indian collapse, and it only needed the spark of Stuart Broad to make it happen. Compare that to the lifeless display of bowling from India at the back end of England's second innings, where runs were being gifted away and nobody seemed to bothered. The impressive Praveen Kumar aside, it was a completely gutless and embarrassing display, as Prior, Bresnan and Broad all cashed in with the easiest runs in test cricket they will ever make. India had completely given up - remarkable for a team that boasts some of the greatest talents to ever grace the game, are World Champions, and the current holders of the world number one ranking. That seems as though it's going to be meekly surrendered too. Bell's innings was full of class, and even allowing for his reprieve, India still were in with a chance. Bell departed at 323/4, a lead of only 256. Had they got their tails up and stuck into England, they could have been looking at a chase of not much more than 300. Given that Bell showed batting wasn't a total nightmare on that pitch, and that they possess Dravid, Laxman and Tendulkar, India were still in with a big chance of winning that game. You know England, or indeed, any team of winners would have at least given it a crack. Instead, they ceded another 200 runs as England's tail took it well out of their reach. By the end, it was men against boys. They didn't even bother trying to reach the victory target of 478.
India are quite clearly a team of class individual players, all with skills that on their day make them world-class performers. However, when the going got tough, they didn't get going at all, instead retreating so meekly it made England's march to victory almost painful to watch. The hosts, on the other hand are a side that relish the big battles, and they invariably win them. To win the game by 319 runs given the perils of the first two days certainly shows the character of this current England team. India earned the number one test ranking, but have underperformed massively so far, with England taking full advantage. England are now odds-on to take over that coveted number one ranking, and having seen the way they've played in the first two tests of the series, you'd fancy them holding onto the position for a very long time to come.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
The Horse for the Course or the Young Buck?
Last week at Lord's, the only selectorial decision England had to make was whether Stuart Broad or Tim Bresnan should make the third seamer spot. And with Broad having a blinder at HQ and Chris Tremlett seemingly ruled out due to injury, Bresnan is again embroiled in a fight for that final fast-bowling position in the side.
His opposition this week is Steven Finn, the fastest Englishman to 50 test wickets, but still lacks that little bit of control so desired by Strauss and Flower. The argument for Finn is a good one - he does have a great knack of taking wickets, and with a bit of extra height and bounce he could be England's ENFORCER (not that they need one).
However, things are stacked in Tim's favour. For one, he doesn't have to partake in a long late night drive from London to Nottingham the night before the game, so can instead tuck up in bed and get an early night. He also has much more of an ability to swing the ball; so much so that he was England's "horses for courses" swing bowler at Melbourne, incidentally replacing Finn. With a green top prepared and Trent Bridge historically being a swingers haven, Bresnan should surely be favourite. Add to that the fact that Finn didn't even make the 12 man squad for this game and that Messrs Flower and Strauss favour the "next cab off the rank" selectorial policy (they don't mind a bit of jargon, do they?) it's all certainly pointing towards Bresnan getting the nod at 10.30 tomorrow morning.
So Steven Finn's going to have to make the 105 mile journey from Lord's to Trent Bridge all in vain. He's spent more time on the motorways than playing for England this summer, and while he's not quite there in terms of getting into the team, he's showing willing and his knocking on the door is certainly getting louder. Sadly it seems he's just going to have to keep knocking and remaining patient for a little bit longer yet. Bresnan, however, has the chance to show why he did so well in the final two Ashes tests, and firmly show just how good a test bowler he can be for England.
His opposition this week is Steven Finn, the fastest Englishman to 50 test wickets, but still lacks that little bit of control so desired by Strauss and Flower. The argument for Finn is a good one - he does have a great knack of taking wickets, and with a bit of extra height and bounce he could be England's ENFORCER (not that they need one).
However, things are stacked in Tim's favour. For one, he doesn't have to partake in a long late night drive from London to Nottingham the night before the game, so can instead tuck up in bed and get an early night. He also has much more of an ability to swing the ball; so much so that he was England's "horses for courses" swing bowler at Melbourne, incidentally replacing Finn. With a green top prepared and Trent Bridge historically being a swingers haven, Bresnan should surely be favourite. Add to that the fact that Finn didn't even make the 12 man squad for this game and that Messrs Flower and Strauss favour the "next cab off the rank" selectorial policy (they don't mind a bit of jargon, do they?) it's all certainly pointing towards Bresnan getting the nod at 10.30 tomorrow morning.
So Steven Finn's going to have to make the 105 mile journey from Lord's to Trent Bridge all in vain. He's spent more time on the motorways than playing for England this summer, and while he's not quite there in terms of getting into the team, he's showing willing and his knocking on the door is certainly getting louder. Sadly it seems he's just going to have to keep knocking and remaining patient for a little bit longer yet. Bresnan, however, has the chance to show why he did so well in the final two Ashes tests, and firmly show just how good a test bowler he can be for England.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Matt Prior, and why England have nothing to fix
Before this series started, I said that Matt Prior is the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world. I'm only repeating that because at Lord's he proved me right - he put together two excellent innings filled with exciting strokes down at number seven (the second one recovering England frmo a potential collapse to a position of dominance, capped with another test century), as well as keeping expertly at the notoriously difficult Lord's.
Buoyed by this success, the calls for a Prior promotion are gathering. A test average of over 45 with six centuries certainly proves that Prior could easily bat in the top six - indeed he could even bat higher if required. Eoin Morgan, for all of his limited over success, is yet to ignite in his nascent test career, and is not yet 100% assured of his place. Promoting Prior to six would allow England to bring in Tim Bresnan at seven, and play an extra bowler.
There is logic to this idea - the injury to Zaheer on Thursday proved the fragility of a four-man attack, and adding an extra seamer would both help lighten the load on the others, and provide a supplementary option if all isn't going well for the main foursome.
However, the balance of the side would be distorted in quite an unsettling way. First off, England are losing a very good batsman in Eoin Morgan, and replacing him with a bits and pieces bat in Tim Bresnan. They'd also be adding to a bowling attack that doesn't really need adding to. They had no problems in taking 20 wickets at the bowler's graveyard that is Lord's, so why would they need any assistance at the much preferred Trent Bridge? But crucially, the biggest mistake to changing the balance of the team would be moving Matt Prior.
Prior's success over the past few series has been when he's batted at number seven. His quick scoring rate (he knocks along at a test strike rate of 66 - pretty rapid) is best implemented at the number seven position, either to counter-attack and put England back onto the front foot (as he did in the second innnings on Sunday) or to further drive home the advantage against weary bowlers (as he did in his Ashes century at Sydney). Moving him up or down the order would negate the effect of his runs; either adding undue pressure or removing his significance on proceedings.
The old saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and given England's consistency in selection over the past few years, we're almost certain to see an unchanged side at Trent Bridge when the two sides line up again on Friday. And given the remarkable rise of Matt Prior from the earringed lout of his early test days to today's world-class performer, expect him to show why he's leapt to his highest ranking in the world with yet another high-class performance.
Buoyed by this success, the calls for a Prior promotion are gathering. A test average of over 45 with six centuries certainly proves that Prior could easily bat in the top six - indeed he could even bat higher if required. Eoin Morgan, for all of his limited over success, is yet to ignite in his nascent test career, and is not yet 100% assured of his place. Promoting Prior to six would allow England to bring in Tim Bresnan at seven, and play an extra bowler.
There is logic to this idea - the injury to Zaheer on Thursday proved the fragility of a four-man attack, and adding an extra seamer would both help lighten the load on the others, and provide a supplementary option if all isn't going well for the main foursome.
However, the balance of the side would be distorted in quite an unsettling way. First off, England are losing a very good batsman in Eoin Morgan, and replacing him with a bits and pieces bat in Tim Bresnan. They'd also be adding to a bowling attack that doesn't really need adding to. They had no problems in taking 20 wickets at the bowler's graveyard that is Lord's, so why would they need any assistance at the much preferred Trent Bridge? But crucially, the biggest mistake to changing the balance of the team would be moving Matt Prior.
Prior's success over the past few series has been when he's batted at number seven. His quick scoring rate (he knocks along at a test strike rate of 66 - pretty rapid) is best implemented at the number seven position, either to counter-attack and put England back onto the front foot (as he did in the second innnings on Sunday) or to further drive home the advantage against weary bowlers (as he did in his Ashes century at Sydney). Moving him up or down the order would negate the effect of his runs; either adding undue pressure or removing his significance on proceedings.
The old saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and given England's consistency in selection over the past few years, we're almost certain to see an unchanged side at Trent Bridge when the two sides line up again on Friday. And given the remarkable rise of Matt Prior from the earringed lout of his early test days to today's world-class performer, expect him to show why he's leapt to his highest ranking in the world with yet another high-class performance.
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Bresnan v Broad
As expected, the 12 man England squad for the first test only has one issue up for debate - whether it's Stuart Broad or Tim Bresnan who gets the chance to take on the Indians.
Broad's had a pretty woeful summer. After picking up two rather untimely injuries over the winter, Broad was rushed back for the first test against Sri Lanka and looked horribly short of match fitness and sharpness. He lacked a bit of pace, and struggled to work batsmen over. As the wickets didn't come, Broad looked increasingly more bereft in confidence, and slowly settled into a repetitive pattern of banging the ball in halfway under the misguided opinion that he was England's "enforcer". This lack of confidence spilled out into the ODI series - historically Broad's strong suit, where he was wicketless until the third game, and hardly set the world alight after that.
Tim Bresnan on the other hand has seen his star rise while Broad's has fallen. After gaining a lot of experience and respect for his One Day performances over the past 18 months, Bresnan came into the team for the fourth Ashes test and was a revelation. He certainly proved he was a test bowler, and only injury to Bresnan stopped this debate happening ahead of the Sri Lanka series. However, he's now back, and after again impressing during the ODI series (and for Yorkshire in the County Championship), Bresnan is certainly the form horse.
Something that counts massively in Stuart Broad's favour is that he is Stuart Broad - England captain. It would be easy to say that the England powers that be made a rod for their own backs by appointing Broad, and as such are unable to drop him, the issue isn't that superficial. Stuart Broad is an England test regular, and has been for the last three and a half years. It's been a long time since an England test regular has been dropped. The last "big names" to be dropped from an England test team were Matthew Hoggard and Steve Harmison back in New Zealand 2008 - incidentally making space for a young Stuart Broad in the team. Since then, many out of form players have been allowed time to regain their confidence and eventually their form. The names Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Bell, and even Anderson are testament to England's policy of backing their top players through thick and thin. Having all suffered lean spells, they've all recovered their form and helped England to a lofty position in the world rankings.
At the moment, Stuart Broad is in a hideous run of form. His confidence, often so evident, appears shot to pieces - almost to the extent that he's unable to backchat to umpires for fear of retribution (although we know that's never going to happen). And if England want to pick the best three seamers in the country for the first test against India, it's plainly clear that Tim Bresnan is amongst them, whilst Stuart Broad isn't. However. England have nursed their premier players through poor form before, and it would be an about-turn in policy for a management that believes in backing their players to eventually come good. I'm not saying that I want Stuart Broad in this England team (because I don't), but more that you shouldn't be surprised if come Thursday morning it's Broad bowling to Tendulkar et al, while Tim Bresnan's just mixing him up another Maximuscle.
Broad's had a pretty woeful summer. After picking up two rather untimely injuries over the winter, Broad was rushed back for the first test against Sri Lanka and looked horribly short of match fitness and sharpness. He lacked a bit of pace, and struggled to work batsmen over. As the wickets didn't come, Broad looked increasingly more bereft in confidence, and slowly settled into a repetitive pattern of banging the ball in halfway under the misguided opinion that he was England's "enforcer". This lack of confidence spilled out into the ODI series - historically Broad's strong suit, where he was wicketless until the third game, and hardly set the world alight after that.
Tim Bresnan on the other hand has seen his star rise while Broad's has fallen. After gaining a lot of experience and respect for his One Day performances over the past 18 months, Bresnan came into the team for the fourth Ashes test and was a revelation. He certainly proved he was a test bowler, and only injury to Bresnan stopped this debate happening ahead of the Sri Lanka series. However, he's now back, and after again impressing during the ODI series (and for Yorkshire in the County Championship), Bresnan is certainly the form horse.
Something that counts massively in Stuart Broad's favour is that he is Stuart Broad - England captain. It would be easy to say that the England powers that be made a rod for their own backs by appointing Broad, and as such are unable to drop him, the issue isn't that superficial. Stuart Broad is an England test regular, and has been for the last three and a half years. It's been a long time since an England test regular has been dropped. The last "big names" to be dropped from an England test team were Matthew Hoggard and Steve Harmison back in New Zealand 2008 - incidentally making space for a young Stuart Broad in the team. Since then, many out of form players have been allowed time to regain their confidence and eventually their form. The names Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Bell, and even Anderson are testament to England's policy of backing their top players through thick and thin. Having all suffered lean spells, they've all recovered their form and helped England to a lofty position in the world rankings.
At the moment, Stuart Broad is in a hideous run of form. His confidence, often so evident, appears shot to pieces - almost to the extent that he's unable to backchat to umpires for fear of retribution (although we know that's never going to happen). And if England want to pick the best three seamers in the country for the first test against India, it's plainly clear that Tim Bresnan is amongst them, whilst Stuart Broad isn't. However. England have nursed their premier players through poor form before, and it would be an about-turn in policy for a management that believes in backing their players to eventually come good. I'm not saying that I want Stuart Broad in this England team (because I don't), but more that you shouldn't be surprised if come Thursday morning it's Broad bowling to Tendulkar et al, while Tim Bresnan's just mixing him up another Maximuscle.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
England's Twenty20 Identity
Amongst all of the doom and gloom surrounding England's One Day side, it's easy to forget that England are actually not that bad at T20s. Apparently we're World Champions, and World Record holders for the most consecutive wins. So we must be doing something right.
However, since our last T20 game, it's all change. Captain and mainstay of the side Paul Collingwood is no more, and has been replaced at the top by Stuart Broad. We're entering a brave new world of English T20 cricket, but we shouldn't forget what got us to this point in the first place.
England went into the World T20 with a clear plan of attack, with five bowlers who knew they'd bowl 4 overs each, two explosive openers given the licence to blaze away, and a middle order set in stone. As has been repeated an infinite amount of times since, England played an "in your face" aggressive style of cricket; were big-hitters with the bat, clever with the ball, and hawkish in the field.
For this T20 game today at Bristol, Sidebottom, Yardy, Bresnan and Collingwood miss out from the mainstays of the World T20 victories, for a variety of different reasons. However, it's important that while personnel may have changed, the way England play doesn't. England have developed a winning formula for T20 cricket, and while players may come and go, it's important that the brand of play doesn't. Dernbach will come in for Sidebottom, Patel in for Yardy, Woakes in for Bresnan and Bell in for Collingwood.
Today under Stuart Broad, England start a new era of T20 cricket. However, it's vital that it is a case of evolution, not revolution.
However, since our last T20 game, it's all change. Captain and mainstay of the side Paul Collingwood is no more, and has been replaced at the top by Stuart Broad. We're entering a brave new world of English T20 cricket, but we shouldn't forget what got us to this point in the first place.
England went into the World T20 with a clear plan of attack, with five bowlers who knew they'd bowl 4 overs each, two explosive openers given the licence to blaze away, and a middle order set in stone. As has been repeated an infinite amount of times since, England played an "in your face" aggressive style of cricket; were big-hitters with the bat, clever with the ball, and hawkish in the field.
For this T20 game today at Bristol, Sidebottom, Yardy, Bresnan and Collingwood miss out from the mainstays of the World T20 victories, for a variety of different reasons. However, it's important that while personnel may have changed, the way England play doesn't. England have developed a winning formula for T20 cricket, and while players may come and go, it's important that the brand of play doesn't. Dernbach will come in for Sidebottom, Patel in for Yardy, Woakes in for Bresnan and Bell in for Collingwood.
Today under Stuart Broad, England start a new era of T20 cricket. However, it's vital that it is a case of evolution, not revolution.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Time to Banish Broad?
England have a dilemma, and his name is Stuart Broad. 37 tests into his test career, and Broad is averaging a very average 36 with the ball. Given leeway in terms of his average and fairly poor return with the ball for the early part of his test career due to his young age, England will have wanted Broad to have kicked on by now to become one of the world's best. Put simply, he hasn't done that.
Three and a half years in test cricket (and almost five years in international cricket) should mean he's able to adapt to conditions and consistently take wickets. Yet still he belies his 142 international appearances by mindlessly banging the ball in short irregardless of match conditions, pitch conditions, or batsman weaknesses.
Broad was preferred in this game to Steven Finn - a bowler who does have a wonky radar, but bowls a hell of a lot of wicket taking balls. This afternoon (Day 2) at the Rose Bowl, Broad bowled nigh on every ball short of a length, and didn't even look close to taking a wicket. Broad isn't at all threatening with the short ball, which makes his tactics seem all the more odd. Broad appears to believe that just because he is a tall man, he has to bowl at the batsman's head and stare him down each time the batsman dare swipe at one. It's all becoming rather tedious.
If Broad wants a lesson on how a tall player can take test wickets, he should look down at the other end to see Chris Tremlett. Tremlett is a full two inches taller than the dwarf sized Broad, yet doesn't resort to attempting to break the batsman's face every ball. Instead, Tremlett bowls a full length in order to get the batsman coming forward, and takes wickets because he naturally gets extra bounce which is often all too good for the batsmen. Tremlett has only played 8 tests. It should be Broad who is showing Tremlett how it's done, not the other way around.
For three years, there wasn't a hint of Broad being dropped at all. However, if England are aiming for number one, they have to recognise when player's aren't pulling their weight, and act. That means that batsmen have to score runs, and bowlers have to take wickets. Broad just isn't taking enough wickets - he hasn't taken more than two in an innings since the tour of South Africa over 18 months ago - which quite simply is nowhere near good enough. There's no doubt that he can do it - the Ashes winning spell at the Oval in 2009 is testament to that. But those sorts of performances are becoming increasingly distant, and can England afford to have someone who isn't performing to the required level anywhere regularly enough? The key at the Oval was that Broad bowled full and attacked the stumps, with four of the five victims either being bowled or trapped lbw. If Broad returns to bowling that sort of length, he can be a very potent bowler, but he hasn't really done that since that heady day back in 2009.
Dropping Broad from the test team may seem odd when he starts his stint as an England captain next week, but it's not as if there's a shortage of test quality replacements available to come in. Finn, Bresnan, Shahzad, Onions and even Dernbach are all more than good enough and at the moment only loyalty is keeping Broad ahead of them. Broad's injury during the Ashes was unfortunate, but the fact that England won two games by an innings after he went home has proved that he is indeed a dispensible player. If England really do want to become the number one team in the world, they have to start by putting out a team of their best players. That means the batsmen who are to score the most runs, and bowlers who are going to take the most wickets. Quite simply, Stuart Broad does not take enough wickets to justify his place in the test team, and as harsh or ruthless as it may be, shouldn't be in the England test team
And if you head over to The Short Midwicket Facebook page, you can vote on who should replace Broad (if anyone) - and while you're there you could 'like' us too!
Three and a half years in test cricket (and almost five years in international cricket) should mean he's able to adapt to conditions and consistently take wickets. Yet still he belies his 142 international appearances by mindlessly banging the ball in short irregardless of match conditions, pitch conditions, or batsman weaknesses.
Broad was preferred in this game to Steven Finn - a bowler who does have a wonky radar, but bowls a hell of a lot of wicket taking balls. This afternoon (Day 2) at the Rose Bowl, Broad bowled nigh on every ball short of a length, and didn't even look close to taking a wicket. Broad isn't at all threatening with the short ball, which makes his tactics seem all the more odd. Broad appears to believe that just because he is a tall man, he has to bowl at the batsman's head and stare him down each time the batsman dare swipe at one. It's all becoming rather tedious.
If Broad wants a lesson on how a tall player can take test wickets, he should look down at the other end to see Chris Tremlett. Tremlett is a full two inches taller than the dwarf sized Broad, yet doesn't resort to attempting to break the batsman's face every ball. Instead, Tremlett bowls a full length in order to get the batsman coming forward, and takes wickets because he naturally gets extra bounce which is often all too good for the batsmen. Tremlett has only played 8 tests. It should be Broad who is showing Tremlett how it's done, not the other way around.
For three years, there wasn't a hint of Broad being dropped at all. However, if England are aiming for number one, they have to recognise when player's aren't pulling their weight, and act. That means that batsmen have to score runs, and bowlers have to take wickets. Broad just isn't taking enough wickets - he hasn't taken more than two in an innings since the tour of South Africa over 18 months ago - which quite simply is nowhere near good enough. There's no doubt that he can do it - the Ashes winning spell at the Oval in 2009 is testament to that. But those sorts of performances are becoming increasingly distant, and can England afford to have someone who isn't performing to the required level anywhere regularly enough? The key at the Oval was that Broad bowled full and attacked the stumps, with four of the five victims either being bowled or trapped lbw. If Broad returns to bowling that sort of length, he can be a very potent bowler, but he hasn't really done that since that heady day back in 2009.
Dropping Broad from the test team may seem odd when he starts his stint as an England captain next week, but it's not as if there's a shortage of test quality replacements available to come in. Finn, Bresnan, Shahzad, Onions and even Dernbach are all more than good enough and at the moment only loyalty is keeping Broad ahead of them. Broad's injury during the Ashes was unfortunate, but the fact that England won two games by an innings after he went home has proved that he is indeed a dispensible player. If England really do want to become the number one team in the world, they have to start by putting out a team of their best players. That means the batsmen who are to score the most runs, and bowlers who are going to take the most wickets. Quite simply, Stuart Broad does not take enough wickets to justify his place in the test team, and as harsh or ruthless as it may be, shouldn't be in the England test team
And if you head over to The Short Midwicket Facebook page, you can vote on who should replace Broad (if anyone) - and while you're there you could 'like' us too!
Monday, 6 June 2011
Finn's Nifty Fifty
Today, Steven Finn broke a long-standing record by becoming the fastest man in English test history to get to 50 test wickets. At just 22 years and 63 days, and in his 12th test match, Finn has broken the previous record (set by Ian Botham) by 6 months. Pretty good going.
So for someone who clearly takes wickets, and has an average of 26, why hasn't Finn been in the team? Dropped after Perth and only back in here thanks to Jimmy Anderson's injury, Finn hasn't nailed down a place in the team, and chances are he'll drop out again when Anderson returns.
The key stat to look at is Finn's run rate in tests. 3.97. While he has a very handy knack of taking wickets, he does leak runs, and with a lot of England's plans revolving around keeping it tight and creating pressure, having a leaky bowler who is spraying it around can undo all of the hard work created at the other end. At the time of being dropped during the Ashes, Finn was the leading wicket taker of the series, but at what cost? His economy rates Down Under don't make pretty reading - 3.71, 6.25, 4.43, 3.33, 4.61, 5.73. While England valued his wickets, they went for the more frugal Tim Bresnan at Melbourne, and the rest is history.
But, while Finn struggles to stem the flow of runs, he does have that very happy knack of taking wickets. 50 wickets in 12 matches is testament to that. Finn is a young man, and is still learning his craft as a fast bowler. No doubt in time he'll be able to keep it tight and bowl far more consistently, but at the moment he sprays it around far too often. When Anderson, or even Bresnan becomes fit again, the question has to be whether England value a man who will take wickets at a high tariff, or create pressure and be less effective but more cheap.
It is a tricky one. Ultimately it's wickets that win test matches, and Finn takes wickets. But a lot of England's plans revolve around stifling the opposition, and forcing mistakes caused by scoreboard pressure. While Tremlett and Broad hardly covered themselves in glory this test match, normally England's attack is a much less generous proposition, and may have winkled out a few more wickets yesterday thanks to a low run rate forcing Sri Lankans to take risks attempting to force the pace.
Will Finn be dropped to make way when Anderson returns? Probably. The Andocracy have made it clear what their plans are for successful test cricket, and they can't afford to have one leaky bowler conceding over a hundred each innings. But will Steven Finn take hundreds more test wickets for England? Absolutely. Finn is still learning his craft, and there's nowhere more unforgiving than in test cricket. As Finn matures and grows in experience, any question about him being an expensive bowler will be out of the window, and he'll be an automatic pick as part of England's attack. But he quite clearly isn't there yet (as Matt Prior's 25 byes can testify) and what Finn needs to do is to go away from the glare of international cricket for a while, and just bowl. He's been very good in taking his first 50 test wickets. He'll be excellent as he takes his next few hundred.
So for someone who clearly takes wickets, and has an average of 26, why hasn't Finn been in the team? Dropped after Perth and only back in here thanks to Jimmy Anderson's injury, Finn hasn't nailed down a place in the team, and chances are he'll drop out again when Anderson returns.
The key stat to look at is Finn's run rate in tests. 3.97. While he has a very handy knack of taking wickets, he does leak runs, and with a lot of England's plans revolving around keeping it tight and creating pressure, having a leaky bowler who is spraying it around can undo all of the hard work created at the other end. At the time of being dropped during the Ashes, Finn was the leading wicket taker of the series, but at what cost? His economy rates Down Under don't make pretty reading - 3.71, 6.25, 4.43, 3.33, 4.61, 5.73. While England valued his wickets, they went for the more frugal Tim Bresnan at Melbourne, and the rest is history.
But, while Finn struggles to stem the flow of runs, he does have that very happy knack of taking wickets. 50 wickets in 12 matches is testament to that. Finn is a young man, and is still learning his craft as a fast bowler. No doubt in time he'll be able to keep it tight and bowl far more consistently, but at the moment he sprays it around far too often. When Anderson, or even Bresnan becomes fit again, the question has to be whether England value a man who will take wickets at a high tariff, or create pressure and be less effective but more cheap.
It is a tricky one. Ultimately it's wickets that win test matches, and Finn takes wickets. But a lot of England's plans revolve around stifling the opposition, and forcing mistakes caused by scoreboard pressure. While Tremlett and Broad hardly covered themselves in glory this test match, normally England's attack is a much less generous proposition, and may have winkled out a few more wickets yesterday thanks to a low run rate forcing Sri Lankans to take risks attempting to force the pace.
Will Finn be dropped to make way when Anderson returns? Probably. The Andocracy have made it clear what their plans are for successful test cricket, and they can't afford to have one leaky bowler conceding over a hundred each innings. But will Steven Finn take hundreds more test wickets for England? Absolutely. Finn is still learning his craft, and there's nowhere more unforgiving than in test cricket. As Finn matures and grows in experience, any question about him being an expensive bowler will be out of the window, and he'll be an automatic pick as part of England's attack. But he quite clearly isn't there yet (as Matt Prior's 25 byes can testify) and what Finn needs to do is to go away from the glare of international cricket for a while, and just bowl. He's been very good in taking his first 50 test wickets. He'll be excellent as he takes his next few hundred.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Flower's Five Big Calls for 2011
With the news that Andy Flower has extended his contract as England team director, and with a busy summer of cricket ahead, there are a few decisions to be made about English cricket. While English cricket is certainly not at a crossroads, decisions do have to be made in order for England to succeed in the long run, and it's imperative that Flower gets them right. So I've had a look at what the 5 biggest decisions that Flower has to make this summer are, and how he should make them.
1. ODI captaincy
Andrew Strauss has been an excellent leader of England since taking the captaincy full-time 2 years ago, and he's also performed very well in ODI cricket. However, with an ever growing amount of international cricket taking it's toll, and Strauss knowing he won't be around for the 2015 World Cup, now appears to be the time to either stick or twist. If Strauss wants to stay on and play ODI cricket, it would make sense to have him in as captain, but if he decides to hang up his blue pads in order to prolong his test career, Flower needs to name a replacement. FEC Alastair Cook isn't currently in the England ODI side which may hold him back from getting the nod, and there are pros and cons for a number of candidates. There's a growing clamour for a return for Kevin Pietersen, as well as Stuart Broad, Jimmy Anderson, Ian Bell and even Graeme Swann. Flower has to get this decision right, as consistently chopping and changing the captaincy in the lead up to the 2015 WC can only be a negative issue.
2. Replacement for Collingwood
Paul Collingwood was a big part of England's test middle order for a number of years, and probably rightly retired from the format following the Ashes. While the bowling has been mixed and shaken about over the past few years, England's top seven has been incredibly settled, and now Flower needs to choose a replacement for Collingwood. The "man in possession", Eoin Morgan (who deputised for the injured Ian Bell against Pakistan) is probably more of a one-day player than a test batsman, perhaps something that could also be levelled at one of the other contenders Ravi Bopara. James Hildreth is a dark horse, but has no international experience which could count against him. Whoever is selected will need to perform immediately against very strong opposition in Sri Lanka and India, so Flower will have to get the selection spot on.
3. Fast bowling
England have the luxury of having a real strength in depth of fast bowlers, with Anderson, Broad, Finn, Bresnan, Tremlett and even Onions all vying for a probable three places in the team. Anderson and Broad appear definites, leaving the others fighting it out over the remaining place. All have impressed in the past year, and this selection could be one of Flower's toughest assignments.
4. ODI openers
We saw in the World Cup (and the Australia series immediately preceding it) that England struggled to get the right formula in terms of an opening partership. Strauss, Pietersen, Prior and Bell were all used, and with none of them guaranteed of their place in the team going forwards (and only Strauss being a "natural" opener) picking the two men at the top must be a real worry for Flower. Should be stick with the tried and trusted of Strauss and Cook or Davies, or look outside the box to a Hales or Chopra? The future of Strauss will help him decide, but changes will be needed if England are to succeed as an ODI team.
5. T20 captaincy
Currently Paul Collingwood is England's T20 captain. While it was only 12 months ago that he was hailed as the inspiration behind England's World T20 win, Collingwood's international career appears to be over, so as such will need to be replaced as the T20 skipper. While Flower's decision can be made much easier if Strauss steps aside from limited over cricket, leaving space for a joint captaincy, a real headache will be created if he decides to stay, with Flower needing to give someone the T20 captaincy. Again, the same candidates for the ODI captaincy will be in the running, and this decision could potentially be very awkward if Strauss wants to keep playing ODIs.
1. ODI captaincy
Andrew Strauss has been an excellent leader of England since taking the captaincy full-time 2 years ago, and he's also performed very well in ODI cricket. However, with an ever growing amount of international cricket taking it's toll, and Strauss knowing he won't be around for the 2015 World Cup, now appears to be the time to either stick or twist. If Strauss wants to stay on and play ODI cricket, it would make sense to have him in as captain, but if he decides to hang up his blue pads in order to prolong his test career, Flower needs to name a replacement. FEC Alastair Cook isn't currently in the England ODI side which may hold him back from getting the nod, and there are pros and cons for a number of candidates. There's a growing clamour for a return for Kevin Pietersen, as well as Stuart Broad, Jimmy Anderson, Ian Bell and even Graeme Swann. Flower has to get this decision right, as consistently chopping and changing the captaincy in the lead up to the 2015 WC can only be a negative issue.
2. Replacement for Collingwood
Paul Collingwood was a big part of England's test middle order for a number of years, and probably rightly retired from the format following the Ashes. While the bowling has been mixed and shaken about over the past few years, England's top seven has been incredibly settled, and now Flower needs to choose a replacement for Collingwood. The "man in possession", Eoin Morgan (who deputised for the injured Ian Bell against Pakistan) is probably more of a one-day player than a test batsman, perhaps something that could also be levelled at one of the other contenders Ravi Bopara. James Hildreth is a dark horse, but has no international experience which could count against him. Whoever is selected will need to perform immediately against very strong opposition in Sri Lanka and India, so Flower will have to get the selection spot on.
3. Fast bowling
England have the luxury of having a real strength in depth of fast bowlers, with Anderson, Broad, Finn, Bresnan, Tremlett and even Onions all vying for a probable three places in the team. Anderson and Broad appear definites, leaving the others fighting it out over the remaining place. All have impressed in the past year, and this selection could be one of Flower's toughest assignments.
4. ODI openers
We saw in the World Cup (and the Australia series immediately preceding it) that England struggled to get the right formula in terms of an opening partership. Strauss, Pietersen, Prior and Bell were all used, and with none of them guaranteed of their place in the team going forwards (and only Strauss being a "natural" opener) picking the two men at the top must be a real worry for Flower. Should be stick with the tried and trusted of Strauss and Cook or Davies, or look outside the box to a Hales or Chopra? The future of Strauss will help him decide, but changes will be needed if England are to succeed as an ODI team.
5. T20 captaincy
Currently Paul Collingwood is England's T20 captain. While it was only 12 months ago that he was hailed as the inspiration behind England's World T20 win, Collingwood's international career appears to be over, so as such will need to be replaced as the T20 skipper. While Flower's decision can be made much easier if Strauss steps aside from limited over cricket, leaving space for a joint captaincy, a real headache will be created if he decides to stay, with Flower needing to give someone the T20 captaincy. Again, the same candidates for the ODI captaincy will be in the running, and this decision could potentially be very awkward if Strauss wants to keep playing ODIs.
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
"What If" - a draft
I wrote this post when West Indies needed another 30 odd runs, with 4 wickets in hand. The last rites of England's World Cup campaign were being given, and I wanted to get the "England are out" post out of the way, so I wrote it while the game was still going. Just as I finished it, there was a quick flurry of action, and suddenly England are more than alive and kicking. England may still go out of this World Cup in the groups, but I'm keeping this post, mainly to jinx every other team who plays against them this World Cup. Come on England!
"So England are out of the World Cup. A team who were highly touted as potential winners have disappointed so much, and crashed out with barely a whimper in the groups.
What makes this so disappointing is that I genuinely thought England could do something at this World Cup. Yes, we'd struggled against Australia, but if you look at this England squad, there's a lot of quality.
In Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pietersen (and latterly Morgan) England had a world-class batting line-up. In Anderson, Bresnan and Broad we had a superb fast bowling trio. And the trump card - Graeme Swann - the best spinner in the world.
The worst thing about being an England fan is the hope that they give us; the hope that they just might do it - that they just might go on and win. There have been so many fine margins in England's departure - what if Swann had squeaked Munaf Patel away for two off the last ball against India? What if Kevin O'Brien had holed out early in his innings? What if they'd managed to take the final two Bangladeshi wickets? What if Jonathan Trott hadn't been adjudged to touch the boundary rope? What if Tredwell's appeal to Benn hadn't been an 'umpire's call'?
As it is, England are out, and there will be an inquest. England have a team good enough to have won this World Cup, but have massively disappointed. All England fans can ask, is what if?"
"So England are out of the World Cup. A team who were highly touted as potential winners have disappointed so much, and crashed out with barely a whimper in the groups.
What makes this so disappointing is that I genuinely thought England could do something at this World Cup. Yes, we'd struggled against Australia, but if you look at this England squad, there's a lot of quality.
In Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pietersen (and latterly Morgan) England had a world-class batting line-up. In Anderson, Bresnan and Broad we had a superb fast bowling trio. And the trump card - Graeme Swann - the best spinner in the world.
The worst thing about being an England fan is the hope that they give us; the hope that they just might do it - that they just might go on and win. There have been so many fine margins in England's departure - what if Swann had squeaked Munaf Patel away for two off the last ball against India? What if Kevin O'Brien had holed out early in his innings? What if they'd managed to take the final two Bangladeshi wickets? What if Jonathan Trott hadn't been adjudged to touch the boundary rope? What if Tredwell's appeal to Benn hadn't been an 'umpire's call'?
As it is, England are out, and there will be an inquest. England have a team good enough to have won this World Cup, but have massively disappointed. All England fans can ask, is what if?"
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
The West Indies Crunch Match - Preview
So the big decider is upon us. The biggest game of England's World Cup, until the next one (assuming we get another). I'm sure you all know the calculations by now. England must win, but hope that South Africa beat Bangladesh. (Technically England could tie, and go through on NRR if Bangladesh lose. Or beat West Indies heavily, hope India beat West Indies heavily, and sneak past the Islanders on NRR. But that's unlikely). But to even stand a chance, England must win.
I've spoken to death about how Swann should open, and Tredwell should come into England's team. Sadly, I've also spoken about England's cowardly selections, which makes big high risk changes unlikely. So for Swann to open, Tredwell to come in, or the selectors generally doing something out of the comfort zone would be a big surprise, so we're probably going to still see Prior opening and Collingwood at 7/8. Mainly because the selectors do not like admitting they are wrong, and changing it only three days after the Bangladeshi defeat would be an admittance that they got it badly wrong.
Which makes the rumours that Jimmy Anderson will be dropped surprising. Anderson has been in awful form, and had someone less senior than him been performing like he has, they would have been bombed out of the team long ago. However, Anderson is the supposed leader of the attack, and as such, has been an untouchable in the starting eleven. However, there have been calls for Tremlett to come in for Anderson, which as justified as they may be, England's cowardly selections thus far mean a big high risk decision like dropping Anderson would be a big shock - especially given there is no safety net from here on in. Luckily (or unluckily) Ajmal Shahzad has the squits, so a controversial and difficult for the selectors could be avoided, as Tremlett could replace Shahzad if Aj is unable to play.
As with the previous game, there have been calls for England to play three spinners, but for me this would be a wrong call. England have lacked a pace man in the middle overs, and while three spinners could strangle the West Indies, playing only Bresnan and Tremlett/Shahzad/Anderson for the opening overs and at the death would be a mistake, as we've seen how easily milked Yardy and Collingwood have been when pace has been taken off the ball in the middle overs. But I'd still like to see an attacking spinner in Tredwell play - especially if Swann opens (which allows England to bat properly down to seven, and play a proper five man attack).
It will be a crunch game for England, and they will massively up their game to beat a West Indies side who are on a good run of form. Don't forget - the WIndies do need to win themselves, or they suddenly have a very difficult game against India at the weekend. England, however, have been gloriously inconsistent, which makes it very difficult to predict how they'll do in any given game. I do hope they roll the dice and make some brave decisions, but as long as England win, I wouldn't care if Luke Wright opened the bowling and batting, and took over as captain.
Come on England!
I've spoken to death about how Swann should open, and Tredwell should come into England's team. Sadly, I've also spoken about England's cowardly selections, which makes big high risk changes unlikely. So for Swann to open, Tredwell to come in, or the selectors generally doing something out of the comfort zone would be a big surprise, so we're probably going to still see Prior opening and Collingwood at 7/8. Mainly because the selectors do not like admitting they are wrong, and changing it only three days after the Bangladeshi defeat would be an admittance that they got it badly wrong.
Which makes the rumours that Jimmy Anderson will be dropped surprising. Anderson has been in awful form, and had someone less senior than him been performing like he has, they would have been bombed out of the team long ago. However, Anderson is the supposed leader of the attack, and as such, has been an untouchable in the starting eleven. However, there have been calls for Tremlett to come in for Anderson, which as justified as they may be, England's cowardly selections thus far mean a big high risk decision like dropping Anderson would be a big shock - especially given there is no safety net from here on in. Luckily (or unluckily) Ajmal Shahzad has the squits, so a controversial and difficult for the selectors could be avoided, as Tremlett could replace Shahzad if Aj is unable to play.
As with the previous game, there have been calls for England to play three spinners, but for me this would be a wrong call. England have lacked a pace man in the middle overs, and while three spinners could strangle the West Indies, playing only Bresnan and Tremlett/Shahzad/Anderson for the opening overs and at the death would be a mistake, as we've seen how easily milked Yardy and Collingwood have been when pace has been taken off the ball in the middle overs. But I'd still like to see an attacking spinner in Tredwell play - especially if Swann opens (which allows England to bat properly down to seven, and play a proper five man attack).
It will be a crunch game for England, and they will massively up their game to beat a West Indies side who are on a good run of form. Don't forget - the WIndies do need to win themselves, or they suddenly have a very difficult game against India at the weekend. England, however, have been gloriously inconsistent, which makes it very difficult to predict how they'll do in any given game. I do hope they roll the dice and make some brave decisions, but as long as England win, I wouldn't care if Luke Wright opened the bowling and batting, and took over as captain.
Come on England!
Thursday, 10 March 2011
England's World Cup Winning Side
What with Pietersen and Broad going home, England will have to play a different eleven to those who narrowly beat South Africa. And given that England were hardly in sparkling form before the win, there could easily be a few more changes. So who should they pick?
Well, now that Pietersen's not there, England will need to play another opener alongside Strauss. There are a few options, but moving a Bopara or Bell from the middle order would only unsettle things further, so I wouldn't do that. Some have said that Morgan should go straight in at the top, but that would negate his biggest asset - the "cool handed finisher" which England have massively lacked so far. If he opens, while he may be able to exploit the opening powerplays, England wouldn't have him at the crucial finishing overs - the time where his star shines the brightest. So he's not an option either.
There's been some calls (even from BBC Sport's Oliver Brett, nonetheless)for Luke Wright to come in and open. And I sort of see the logic. Wright opening wouldn't impact on the successful middle order, and some argue that he could make quick runs as a pinch-hitter at the top. However, Luke Wright is a poor excuse for a batsman; he's been tried as an opening pinch hitter, a middle order accumulator and as a late-order slogger, and he's failed in every role. He simply isn't a good enough batsman (or bowler) to be playing international cricket. And considering that England will likely want to play 5 bowlers (and have either Bresnan or Yardy at seven), having Wright and Yardy (sorry Sussex fans) in an international top order is a real recipe for disaster. No team should go into an ODI with four batsmen and a keeper.
For me, the best and most obvious option to open would be Graeme Swann. So far he's been the English player who's hit the ball the cleanest, and can definitely act as a pinch-hitter. He's done it in the past for Notts, with success, and he certainly has the confidence in his own abilities to pull it off. And opening with Swann gives much greater balance to the team, as England suddenly have Prior at seven, and bat much deeper while still allowing five bowlers to be picked.
It is not hypocritical of me to badmouth Wright as a batsman, and then ask for a number 9 to open instead. Swann is a much better batsman that Luke Wright. Look at the averages. To be fair, I'm a better batsman than Luke Wright.
So Swann will open. Broad is now out, so changes will need to be made bowling-wise. England will want to stick with the two-spinner / three-seamer approach, so either Tremlett or Shahzad will come in. For me, Shahzad is much better suited to the conditions. Tremlett bowls a length which requires a lot more bounce from the pitch to trouble batsmen, whereas I think Shahzad is a better wicket-taking option in the subcontinent, especially given that he has the ability to generate reverse-swing later on.
And my other change to the side would be bringing in Tredwell for Yardy. England struggled against India and Ireland, because they couldn't take wickets (Bresnan v India aside). Part of the reason for that is Yardy doesn't really take wickets. He isn't expected to take wickets either, which puts far more pressure on the other guys. And it only takes a bad day in the office for a couple of the seamers for a big partnership to develop and bat England out of the game (see Kevin O'Brien for details). Yardy, as effective as he can be at keeping the run rate fairly low, just isn't an aggressive wicket-taking option. Also in the squad is perennial water boy James Tredwell. Admiteddly Jimmy T is yet to take an ODI wicket, but he at least is an aggressive bowler, and will take wickets if the selectors show even the faintest amount of confidence in his abilities. So I'd stick Tredwell in for Yardy.
So England's side, is suddenly looking much stronger. In Swann opening there is a gamble, but we've seen gambles pay off big time for teams willing to make those brave calls so far this World Cup. And England's batting card of Strauss, Trott, Bell, Bopara, Morgan and Prior (down to seven) is up there with the best around. The bowling may not be as strong, but in Bresnan, Swann and Anderson England have three well-established ODI players who can all be match-winners on their day. And in Shahzad and Tredwell are two players who could surprise teams, and chip in with crucial wickets. There's still a long way to go before anyone can realistically think of England winning this thing, but it only takes a couple of good performances, and that all-important momentum to come England's way, and anything could happen. (That's the trouble though, with England, literally anything could happen...)
My England team:
Strauss (c)
Swann
Trott
Bell
Bopara
Morgan
Prior (wk)
Bresnan
Tredwell
Shahzad
Anderson
Well, now that Pietersen's not there, England will need to play another opener alongside Strauss. There are a few options, but moving a Bopara or Bell from the middle order would only unsettle things further, so I wouldn't do that. Some have said that Morgan should go straight in at the top, but that would negate his biggest asset - the "cool handed finisher" which England have massively lacked so far. If he opens, while he may be able to exploit the opening powerplays, England wouldn't have him at the crucial finishing overs - the time where his star shines the brightest. So he's not an option either.
There's been some calls (even from BBC Sport's Oliver Brett, nonetheless)for Luke Wright to come in and open. And I sort of see the logic. Wright opening wouldn't impact on the successful middle order, and some argue that he could make quick runs as a pinch-hitter at the top. However, Luke Wright is a poor excuse for a batsman; he's been tried as an opening pinch hitter, a middle order accumulator and as a late-order slogger, and he's failed in every role. He simply isn't a good enough batsman (or bowler) to be playing international cricket. And considering that England will likely want to play 5 bowlers (and have either Bresnan or Yardy at seven), having Wright and Yardy (sorry Sussex fans) in an international top order is a real recipe for disaster. No team should go into an ODI with four batsmen and a keeper.
For me, the best and most obvious option to open would be Graeme Swann. So far he's been the English player who's hit the ball the cleanest, and can definitely act as a pinch-hitter. He's done it in the past for Notts, with success, and he certainly has the confidence in his own abilities to pull it off. And opening with Swann gives much greater balance to the team, as England suddenly have Prior at seven, and bat much deeper while still allowing five bowlers to be picked.
It is not hypocritical of me to badmouth Wright as a batsman, and then ask for a number 9 to open instead. Swann is a much better batsman that Luke Wright. Look at the averages. To be fair, I'm a better batsman than Luke Wright.
So Swann will open. Broad is now out, so changes will need to be made bowling-wise. England will want to stick with the two-spinner / three-seamer approach, so either Tremlett or Shahzad will come in. For me, Shahzad is much better suited to the conditions. Tremlett bowls a length which requires a lot more bounce from the pitch to trouble batsmen, whereas I think Shahzad is a better wicket-taking option in the subcontinent, especially given that he has the ability to generate reverse-swing later on.
And my other change to the side would be bringing in Tredwell for Yardy. England struggled against India and Ireland, because they couldn't take wickets (Bresnan v India aside). Part of the reason for that is Yardy doesn't really take wickets. He isn't expected to take wickets either, which puts far more pressure on the other guys. And it only takes a bad day in the office for a couple of the seamers for a big partnership to develop and bat England out of the game (see Kevin O'Brien for details). Yardy, as effective as he can be at keeping the run rate fairly low, just isn't an aggressive wicket-taking option. Also in the squad is perennial water boy James Tredwell. Admiteddly Jimmy T is yet to take an ODI wicket, but he at least is an aggressive bowler, and will take wickets if the selectors show even the faintest amount of confidence in his abilities. So I'd stick Tredwell in for Yardy.
So England's side, is suddenly looking much stronger. In Swann opening there is a gamble, but we've seen gambles pay off big time for teams willing to make those brave calls so far this World Cup. And England's batting card of Strauss, Trott, Bell, Bopara, Morgan and Prior (down to seven) is up there with the best around. The bowling may not be as strong, but in Bresnan, Swann and Anderson England have three well-established ODI players who can all be match-winners on their day. And in Shahzad and Tredwell are two players who could surprise teams, and chip in with crucial wickets. There's still a long way to go before anyone can realistically think of England winning this thing, but it only takes a couple of good performances, and that all-important momentum to come England's way, and anything could happen. (That's the trouble though, with England, literally anything could happen...)
My England team:
Strauss (c)
Swann
Trott
Bell
Bopara
Morgan
Prior (wk)
Bresnan
Tredwell
Shahzad
Anderson
Saturday, 12 February 2011
England's Future ODI Side
In my earlier post (this one here), I had a look at why Kevin Pietersen could walk away from playing ODI cricket. Assuming KP does decide to give it up, and with the likelihood that Paul Collingwood isn't long for international cricket either (as well as a couple of questions over some of the others), England could easily have a very different looking ODI line-up post World Cup.
The period following the World Cup is historically a time of change. New captains are appointed, the old guard either retire triumphantly or are booted out unceremoniously, and the chaff are discarded in favour of younger, fresher models. Of the 15 men England have picked for this World Cup, it's not inconcievable that at least eight are playing their last lot of ODIs for a number of reasons. So if eight go out, there will need to be a new seven to come in. So who could they be?
Well, to start, I'll show my logic behind the figure of the eight to never again play. While KP has denied he's retiring from ODIs, there's often no smoke without fire, and as I said in the earlier article, chances are that he'll walk away. Paul Collingwood has already retired from tests, and following a disgustingly bad run of form, may either choose to retire from internationals full stop, or be given the heave ho as Team England look to get in a new and improved model. James Tredwell seems to have been picked on the basis that it would be mean to leave him out - and the fact that even Andy Flower was being mooted as being selected ahead of him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the powers that be. And with Adil Rashid knocking on the door, there may no longer be a place for Tredders in the party. Same sort of goes for Mick Yardy, who is probably a better bowler when he has only four overs to be canny, rather than ten, where batsmen are able to eventually score freely off him, and his lack of wicket-taking is fairly glaring. So he could also be on the ODI scrap heap.
Matt Prior has been called up from ODI obscurity for the World Cup, but it wouldn't take much for Davies or Kieswetter to replace him. In fact, chances are Davies would be put back in following the World Cup, and given the chance to bed in and improve in confidence and experience. Ravi Bopara should be in the England team, but for whatever reason, he hasn't been. Some would say this is a personality issue, but the fact that England have been so wary in picking him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the selectors, so when Morgan returns, Bopara could have pulled on the Three Lions for the last time. And maybe they'll have just have had enough of Luke Wright after this World Cup, and if there's any justice in the world, he won't be playing internationally following the tournament.
So that's seven names. And the last one who potentially could play no more ODI cricket could be captain Strauss, as he may want to bow out at the top of ODI cricket (if England win) in order to prolong his test career. And he hasn't been uber brilliant at ODIs anyway.
So here's the fun part. Naming potential replacements. Unless something odd happens, England will have the nucleus of Bell, Trott, Morgan, Swann, Bresnan, Broad and Anderson (with Shahzad also in there to carry drinks) as 100% cast iron available for ODIs over the next few years. So they'll in all likelihood be in there.
Starting with the bowling attack (as the basis is already there), I'll assume that England will want to go with the 3 fast and 2 spin option (of which one of them is handy enough to bat at seven) going forward. Bres, Broad and Anderson are sorted as the three pacers (with Shahzad, Woakes, Finn or Tremlett as alternatives), with Swann guaranteed to play as well. For my other spinner, who I'd also bat at seven, is Adil Rashid. Rashid is easily good enough to bat seven for England, and is developing into a top-class one day leg spinner. We've seen him recently be a big part of the Redbacks winning the Big Bash, and he clearly has the talents readily available to take into international cricket. While there may be an issue about his attitude, I'm sure he'll be fine.
And now batting. For me, Davies should have the gloves, and could open if there aren't any other alternatives. I'd like to see Kent's Joe Denly given another shot internationally as I think he's class. (The Key-Denly dream team opening for England could yet happen...) So Davies to open with Denly, with Trott, Bell and Morgan at 3, 4 and 5. Leaving a batting berth up for grabs.
Yorkshire's Andy Gale has been maturing into a really good cricketer. With some really good one day performances especially (albeit higher up the order), Gale has thrived under the responsibility of captaining the white rose. So I'd get him in. To captain.
OK, seriously, while I think Gale is a FEC, he's not an immediate FEC. So Gale comes in at 6, and I'd give Jimmy Anderson the proverbial one-day armband. Because I think he'd do the best job.
So that would be my England One Day International side, effective the end of the World Cup. And it probably doesn't bode well that I've already written this World Cup off and am planning for 2015...
My England ODI team for the summer
Joe Denly
Steve Davies (wk)
Jonathan Trott
Ian Bell
Eoin Morgan
Andrew Gale
Adil Rashid
Tim Bresnan
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson (c)
The period following the World Cup is historically a time of change. New captains are appointed, the old guard either retire triumphantly or are booted out unceremoniously, and the chaff are discarded in favour of younger, fresher models. Of the 15 men England have picked for this World Cup, it's not inconcievable that at least eight are playing their last lot of ODIs for a number of reasons. So if eight go out, there will need to be a new seven to come in. So who could they be?
Well, to start, I'll show my logic behind the figure of the eight to never again play. While KP has denied he's retiring from ODIs, there's often no smoke without fire, and as I said in the earlier article, chances are that he'll walk away. Paul Collingwood has already retired from tests, and following a disgustingly bad run of form, may either choose to retire from internationals full stop, or be given the heave ho as Team England look to get in a new and improved model. James Tredwell seems to have been picked on the basis that it would be mean to leave him out - and the fact that even Andy Flower was being mooted as being selected ahead of him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the powers that be. And with Adil Rashid knocking on the door, there may no longer be a place for Tredders in the party. Same sort of goes for Mick Yardy, who is probably a better bowler when he has only four overs to be canny, rather than ten, where batsmen are able to eventually score freely off him, and his lack of wicket-taking is fairly glaring. So he could also be on the ODI scrap heap.
Matt Prior has been called up from ODI obscurity for the World Cup, but it wouldn't take much for Davies or Kieswetter to replace him. In fact, chances are Davies would be put back in following the World Cup, and given the chance to bed in and improve in confidence and experience. Ravi Bopara should be in the England team, but for whatever reason, he hasn't been. Some would say this is a personality issue, but the fact that England have been so wary in picking him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the selectors, so when Morgan returns, Bopara could have pulled on the Three Lions for the last time. And maybe they'll have just have had enough of Luke Wright after this World Cup, and if there's any justice in the world, he won't be playing internationally following the tournament.
So that's seven names. And the last one who potentially could play no more ODI cricket could be captain Strauss, as he may want to bow out at the top of ODI cricket (if England win) in order to prolong his test career. And he hasn't been uber brilliant at ODIs anyway.
So here's the fun part. Naming potential replacements. Unless something odd happens, England will have the nucleus of Bell, Trott, Morgan, Swann, Bresnan, Broad and Anderson (with Shahzad also in there to carry drinks) as 100% cast iron available for ODIs over the next few years. So they'll in all likelihood be in there.
Starting with the bowling attack (as the basis is already there), I'll assume that England will want to go with the 3 fast and 2 spin option (of which one of them is handy enough to bat at seven) going forward. Bres, Broad and Anderson are sorted as the three pacers (with Shahzad, Woakes, Finn or Tremlett as alternatives), with Swann guaranteed to play as well. For my other spinner, who I'd also bat at seven, is Adil Rashid. Rashid is easily good enough to bat seven for England, and is developing into a top-class one day leg spinner. We've seen him recently be a big part of the Redbacks winning the Big Bash, and he clearly has the talents readily available to take into international cricket. While there may be an issue about his attitude, I'm sure he'll be fine.
And now batting. For me, Davies should have the gloves, and could open if there aren't any other alternatives. I'd like to see Kent's Joe Denly given another shot internationally as I think he's class. (The Key-Denly dream team opening for England could yet happen...) So Davies to open with Denly, with Trott, Bell and Morgan at 3, 4 and 5. Leaving a batting berth up for grabs.
Yorkshire's Andy Gale has been maturing into a really good cricketer. With some really good one day performances especially (albeit higher up the order), Gale has thrived under the responsibility of captaining the white rose. So I'd get him in. To captain.
OK, seriously, while I think Gale is a FEC, he's not an immediate FEC. So Gale comes in at 6, and I'd give Jimmy Anderson the proverbial one-day armband. Because I think he'd do the best job.
So that would be my England One Day International side, effective the end of the World Cup. And it probably doesn't bode well that I've already written this World Cup off and am planning for 2015...
My England ODI team for the summer
Joe Denly
Steve Davies (wk)
Jonathan Trott
Ian Bell
Eoin Morgan
Andrew Gale
Adil Rashid
Tim Bresnan
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson (c)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)