2005 v 2011 - Ultimate Team

Last night I had a look at this current England side, and whether they're better than their 2005 counterparts. Seeing as quite a few people have been getting involved in creating a 2005-2011 composite side (including Tom Fordyce of the BBC), I thought I'd have a go myself.

1) Alastair Cook (2011) - Just count the runs. Not in sparkling form thus far in this India series, but his feats over the winter and into the Sri Lanka series speak for themselves.

2) Andrew Strauss (2005) - A really tough one this for the opposing opening berth - do you want the Strauss of 2011 with added captaincy? Or the hard-hitting Trescothick, who'd otherwise walk into any composite England team of recent history? Instead I've gone for 2005 edition Strauss, as he gutsed out two big hundreds despite wearing a few from Brett Lee. As classy and stylish a batsman as you could ever see, and 2005 was just about at his pomp.

3) Michael Vaughan [Captain] (2005) - As much for the excellent batting (on his day Vaughany was as good as any in the world) as the innovative and inspirational captaincy. Would certainly get the best out of his bowlers, as well as plenty of runs from number 3.

4) Kevin Pietersen (2011) - The Kevin Pietersen of 2005 was a breath of fresh air; the young skunk-haired Saffa who hit Warney for sixes and dropped catches for fun. The 2011 KP still drops the odd catch, but has become a bit more wise about his cricket. While in 2005 he'd hit a six, but then be caught on the boundary trying it again, in 2011 he's a touch more circumspect, as seen in a gritty 200 at Lord's last week. After a rough patch, 2011 KP has found a way back to the 2005 form that saw him burst onto the world scene, which is why the more mature vintage makes it into the team.

5) Ian Bell (2011) - No contest at all for which edition of Ian Bell to put into the team; in 2005 he was very much a boy amongst men, whereas in 2011 he towers over his contemporaries. Since being shellshocked in 2005, Bell has added guts to his obvious skill, and is arguably the best batsman in the world right now.

6) Andrew Flintoff (2005) - Do I even need to elaborate? Runs, wickets, bucket hands at first slip, inspirational match-winning performances, a few drinks.

7) Matt Prior (2011) - Matt Prior is quite simply the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world, and his all-round game has improved leaps and bounds since arriving on the international scene. Geraint Jones never flourished with either glove or bat, but is still revered as a hero for catching Kasprowicz down the leg side.

8) Graeme Swann (2011) - Graeme Swann is an attacking offie who turns the ball a fair way. Ashley Giles was a defensive slow left armer who's stock ball was the straight one. Thanks for the runs at Trent Bridge Gilo, but I'm sticking with Swanny.

9) Steve Harmison (2005) - Harmy was probably already on the slide by 2005, but was still a fearful sight for any batsman. That early spell on the first morning at Lord's where he skittled the Aussies (and cut Ricky Ponting) set the tone for the series (even if England were thumped) and Harmison led England's most successful attack of recent years with distinction.

10) Jimmy Anderson (2011) - The leader of England's attack six years later. Now with an ability to swing it wherever he wants, there is no better bowler in English conditions, and Jimmy takes wickets for fun.

11) Simon Jones (2005) - A tough one for my final seamer's spot. Chris Tremlett, he of the fearful bounce? Stuart Broad, the enforcer man risen from the dead who takes wickets and scores runs? Matthew Hoggard to share the new ball and make it talk? Instead, I've gone for the master of reverse swing, and the unsung hero of England's 2005 Ashes win. The Welsh Warrior, Simon Jones.


So then, that's my composite 2005 and 2011 England team. Just imagine if such a side (at their peak) had taken to the field - especially with the likes of Trescothick, Trott, Strauss, Pietersen, Tremlett, Broad and Hoggard in reserve - we'd have been world number one years ago!

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.

Geraint Jones - International Recall?

While at Lord's the other day for the Middlesex v Kent CB40 game (less said about the result the better) I overheard a couple of Kent fans arguing about Geraint Jones, and clamouring for his international recall. Jones has long since been cast onto the international scrap-heap, with plenty of alternatives sought and chosen ahead of him. Seemingly there would have to be some sort of explosion at the English Wicket-Keeper’s Summer Disco for Jones to even be thought of when discussing potential England wicket-keepers.

But should we still be so hasty? Jones was probably correctly dropped (no pun intended) from the international fold due to poor glovework rather than due to any obvious flaws in his batting. But just like his successor Matt Prior, who was also cast aside due to a lack of prowess behind the stumps, Jones has worked hard at his game and is (according to the Kent aficionados) a much better keeper as a result.

Jones has also benefitted from a promotion up the order, and has grown in maturity as a batsman as well. While I’m of course not at all advocating a massively shock return to test cricket (where he averages a measly 23 compared to Prior’s lofty 42), Jones does have almost exactly the same figures in ODI cricket as the man who was chosen to stand behind the sticks for England at the World Cup. I don’t really want or think Jones will ever play for England again, but at a time where the wicket-keeper’s position will have to be considered in limited overs cricket, maybe it wouldn’t be as surprising as you think if Jones got the nod.

So what is my random thought of the day? Well, if England did recall Geraint (don’t worry, this isn’t actually going to happen), we could see the reformation of the 2005 Ashes dream team. Hoggard, Harmison and Simon Jones are (occasionally) turning their arms over for their respective counties, and Trescothick is still at his brutal best for Somerset. Lest we forget that Strauss, Pietersen and Bell are actually still playing for England. I’m sure Ashley Giles and Michael Vaughan wouldn’t mind donning the three lions for one last hurrah, and that Freddie Flintoff’s knee surgeon would be perfectly all right with him turning out again. India wouldn’t mind if their coach decided to return back to the England side for an exhibition series. It would be a great money spinner for the ECB, and the TV companies would love it.


...

..

.


This is basically what I think of those Kent fans talking about Geraint Jones playing for England again. It was the most stupid thing ever said about cricket, so I tried to out do it. Sorry Kent fans, it ain't gonna happen.

Finn Musings

Finn's had a nice start to his test career. His first 4 tests were against Bangladesh, which was fun. And he then played four against a Pakistani side who couldn't be bothered to bat.

He hasn't really had much to do in his short career. Without actually doing anything too good, he's found his way onto an Ashes tour with an average of 23. He certainly won't end the tour with an average of 23.

Nobody really knows what Finn will be. Is he a McGrath - someone who probes outside off stump, testing the batsman's technique and being able to seam it around. England don't really do McGraths. We do Harmisons - big, tall fast men who "wang it down" as fast as they can, bouncing it around the batsman's eyes before shattering his stumps.

At the moment, Finn isn't either. He wants to be a McGrath, but at the moment, he's a McGrath without something. He lacks a bit of nip; an X Factor that gets the best batsmen out. As I'm writing (Day 2 Morning of Brisbane test), Finn has bowled half-trackers and half-volleys, been misdirected and malaligned, and hasn't looked like getting anyone out.

Skipper Strauss has told Finn to test Katich and Watson, and has sprayed it around. He hasn't consistently attacked the stumps, he hasn't probed in the corridor, he hasn't really done anything. I'm not sure if I'm saying Finn should or shouldn't be in the side. I'd just like to see him start taking some wickets, otherwise this could be a long tour for England's tallest ever Ashes player.

Pecking Orders

Yesterday I wrote a serious post. It was a post where I had to do research, and be reasonable. The England / Bangladesh test was drawing to a close, and Ajmal Shahzad was bowling. If all was equal, Shahzad would not have been bowling. In the England pecking order, Shahzad is well down.the list, nestling between Steve Harmison and a light breeze. Shahzad, as useful a bowler as he is, will struggle to make the plane for the Ashes tour; let alone the reckoning. Batting at five for England was one of my favourite players, Eoin Morgan. But as much as I see Morgs obvious awesomeness, he is not a test batsman. Last year, he averaged about 23 for Middlesex, and before the tests he'd only played one FC game in the past 9 months. As world-class a 20 and 50 over player as he is, he is not a test player. Ravi Bopara and Michael Carberry (who probably are) must be sitting at home wondering where they stand. As must Steve Davies, Tim Ambrose and James Foster (who have all played for England in the past two years), who appear to have been usurped by Craig Kieswetter as Matt Prior's successor. This rotation policy has probably also confused Geoff Miller.

So, in the order of public service, I've decided to handily create the pecking order list, for future reference for the Pakistan tests and beyond.

Batsmen
Strauss
Pietersen
Collingwood
Cook
Bell
Trott
Morgan
Bopara
Carberry
Vaughan
Boycott
Ramprakash

Bowlers
Swann
Anderson
Broad
Finn
Onions
Bresnan
Shahzad
Sidebottom
Woakes
Harmison
Leventhal

Wicket-Keepers
Prior
Davies
Kieswetter
Foster
Jones
Ambrose
Atkins

No need to thank me Geoff...

You can be Geoff Miller or Ashley Giles by voting on the Short Third Man's latest poll - "Who should be England's bowlers for the first Ashes test in Brisbane?"

New Ball Blues

Tim Bresnan's been called many things in his time. Portly. Roly-poly. Tubby. Fat. Carrying some timber. But England's new ball bowler shouldn't be one of them.

Steven Finn has been picked for this test ahead of Stuart Broad in order to give the young Watfordian some test match experience, ahead of the Ashes this winter. Fair enough. But surely England see Finn as an opening bowler, with his pace and height being perfect for when the ball's at it's hardest. So why isn't Finn bowling first up against the Desh?

The powers that be are trying to be nice to Jimmy Anderson after not playing him in the World T20; making sure he bowls the most, and gets to choose what end he would like. And as England's leader of the attack, Anderson is well within his right to pick the Pavilion End to have his first hurl from. Much has been made of Finn's reluctance to bowl from the Nursery End, but Andrew Strauss should have given him two words if he complained. Man up.

If the selectors want to give Finn test match experience, the best experience for him will be bowling from an 'unfamiliar' end (or as unfamiliar as an end can be at one's own ground). Evidently, it was decided that Finn shouldn't have the new-ball from the Nursery End, so Bresnan got to have his go.

While Bresnan's stock has risen in the England team on the back of a successful tour of Bangladesh, and winning the World T20, he won't be England's new ball bowler on the first morning at Brisbane. Put simply, he is not an international new ball bowler. Despite experimentation, it's been decided that Broad is not either. Barring an incredibly unlikely return for Steve Harmison, the honour of sharing the cherry with Anderson will be a straight shoot-out between Finn and Graham Onions. A Graham Onions who won't have played much cricket. And a Steven Finn who won't have done much new ball bowling for England.

Surely it would make sense for Finn to take the new ball, regardless of end until the end of the summer, so his discovery of experience is extended further. If England are using this Bangladesh series as a way of formulating plans for this winter, (which the resting of Broad and Collingwood certainly suggests), it would certainly make sense Strauss to throw Finn the ball first. And if Finn bowls as well as he did in the first innings, he's going to earn his place on merit (and not just because others have been rested).

What England owe Ravi

Kevin Pietersen, star of England's World T20 win over South Africa has flown home. In his place comes the black sheep of English cricket Ravi Bopara. Bopara, scapegoated and slaughtered for four indifferent tests on the back of three successive hundreds, has been dropped out of the one day side, and become an unloved, unwanted pariah.

But it wasn't too long ago when Ravi Bopara was the great hope of English cricket. A mainstay of the one-day team (having been part of some fantastic innings - Sri Lanka and India in 2007 to name two), Bopara made English cricket history by scoring three successive test hundreds against the West Indies last year. Bopara was fast-tracked into the test team as a specialist number three (a position he is unfamiliar with) for last summer, but after a few failures he was bombed out for the final Ashes test for the untried Jonathan Trott. Bopara didn't even make the squad for the tour of South Africa, in either the test or one day squad, but was surprisingly named in the World T20 squad. Some would say to simply justify his central contract. But who would be that controversial?

England owe Ravi Bopara. Big time. Ravi is one of our most talented batsmen, and there is no way there isn't a place for him in one of the codes. After those three hundreds (albeit against a West Indies team who had no idea why they were there), Bopara should have nailed on a place in the team for the next five years. Ian Bell has carved out a career from making a score every 10 tests, and he keeps his place. Yes, Bopara had a poor Ashes, but there's no way that Bell deserved to play in that final test ahead of Ravi. Bopara had a poor four tests, Bell had a poor four years. Bell's England career seems to be based on the principle that "he's due runs". What's to say Bopara isn't due runs? Players go in and out of form, and as any cliché-enthusiast will tell you, form is temporary but class is permanent. (Copyright every blog about Dimitar Berbatov ever). Can the selectors really justify Bell over Bopara, when Ravi is clearly the better batsman?

Ravi is definately owed one by the ECB. For the final day at the Oval, where the Ashes was clinched, every England player who played in the series got a medal, lap of honour, and a mention in Andrew Strauss' speech. Monty Panesar, who played in one test, got a special mention. Bopara's imput into England winning was slight, but at least he was part of a test winning team at Lord's. Panesar played out a draw. Bopara's cumulative score of 1-1 was the same as Steve Harmison and Graham Onions, and was equal to Panesar's 0-0. But Onions and Panesar (along with Kevin Pietersen) were all out for the lap of honour, basking in the reflective glory of an Ashes win. Bopara was playing for Essex at Chelmsford.

Bopara didn't make the squads for the tours to South Africa and Bangladesh, or the squad for the T20 tour of Dubai against Pakistan. He made a solid fifty in the T20 warm-up game before this tournament, before he was again dropped. England do owe Ravi Bopara, but ultimately, Ravi Bopara owes England a few scores. If he can make a few match-winning contributions as England win the World T20, Bopara can force himself back into the selectors reckoning for further test and ODI honours. Bopara owes it to himself to make runs. Hopefully starting tonight against New Zealand.

The Wisden Five

Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year have been published. An annual honour of the highest degree; being named as one of the Wisden Five is the pinnacle of a cricketer's career, and is awarded to those who have made the biggest impact on the previous English cricketing summer. This year, Graeme Swann, Stuart Broad, Matt Prior, Graham Onions and Michael Clarke have been chosen. Clarke and Swann aside, it's difficult to argue for their inclusion.

Over the English summer, England played the West Indies, the World T20, and the Ashes against Australia (as well as ODIs against both of the touring nations). Graham Onions made his international debut against the West Indies. Yes, he took five wickets on debut (a fine achievement), but this was against a very disinterested West Indian side, who were upset that they were not still playing in the IPL. Onions did not feature in the ODI series, or the World T20, or indeed the opening Ashes test. When he did come in, for tests 2, 3 and 4, Onions bowled well (when the ball was swinging), but you couldn't argue that his bowling won any games for England. His Australian counterparts Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Johnson all outbowled him, and would have been better candidates for inclusion in the list.

Stuart Broad did take an Ashes winning 5 for at the Oval, and should be applauded. But we shouldn't forget the first four tests, where he looked as threatening to batsmen as a bumble-bee; it could sting you but it probably won't, and is easily swatted away. His inability to bowl remotely dangerous balls made him very much the scapegoat of the England attack, and there were large calls for him to be dropped ahead of the 5th test. Arguably, his batting outperformed his bowling, but a Wisden Cricketer of the Year should not be made due to batting exploits at number 8. Again, the fifth test aside, Broad was outbowled by Hilfenhaus and Siddle. But Broad did make the impact of winning England the Ashes, so my argument against him is basically me being very awkward.

The inclusion of Matt Prior is an interesting one. It can't be denied that Prior's keeping has improved, but the words "polishing" and "turd" do come to mind. If we are to judge Prior as a specialist number 6, he was outscored by Marcus North, and if we are to judge him as a wicket keeper - batsman, he was outplayed by Brad Haddin. Prior didn't even make the World T20 squad; and was rubbish in the one dayers, so he clearly didn't make that much of an impact on the English summer.

The announcement of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year are always going to create debate, seen most clearly when Claire Taylor was on the list last year. It's hard to argue with Swann (who was England's best player over 2009), and Clarke, who Strauss aside was the player of the Ashes. However, while England did defy the odds to win, Prior and Onions were only supplementary players to the victory, and statistically, there should have been more Australians on the list than Englishmen. However, Wisden's rules state that a player cannot win the award twice, meaning it would have been impossible for Strauss, Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison and Collingwood to be on the list. And Onions, Broad and Prior were the only players left. Well, they weren't going to pick Ravi Bopara.