Meet the old England, same as the new England

It's been quite a while since I've last done any blogging. I did a few for the 2013 English Ashes (remember those, back when England were good? Heady days) but the last time I blogged with any real regularity was the 2011 World Cup. England underwhelmed in the groups so terribly that they only got through to the knockout stage thanks to a format that aided the big boys so much that non-qualification was near impossible, try as they may. Once there however, England had no hope and were crushed by 10 wickets by Sri Lanka. Despite four years of planning, seeing careers shortened and those plans ripped up and rewritten numerous times along the way, England weren't even close to being up to scratch, and despite a month at the tournament were home long before the World Cup got close to being interesting.

So with all that in mind, I've decided to give cricket blogging another go (well, for this one at least). A lot's changed for me since I created and built this site up, before completely forgetting about it. I was writing about the last World Cup on my gap year in South Africa, and in the subsequent four years I've started university, graduated with a Journalism degree, had a go as a cricket journalist and commentator, worked in digital content for MCC, moved full-time to West London, and am now working in the communications department for a charity. I'm sure plenty of others have had a much more dramatic change since 2011, but funnily enough, not much has changed for England. Sure, different captain, different coach, and different victims of batting collapses, but everything else is as you were.

Acknowledging how badly things were got wrong in 2011, the ECB acted to try to make a better go of it this time around. The Ashes scheduled for this winter were bumped to last year to give the one-day side a clear run to the World Cup, and a captain was appointed with 2015 firmly in mind. This of course being a captain who wasn't in the ODI side (and hadn't been for a number of years) who was bumped about a month before the World Cup started. Sure, the ECB weren't to know that the back-to-back Ashes weren't to put paid to the careers of Pietersen, Trott, Swann and Prior for the variety of reasons that it did, but surely some bright spark could have noticed that ten consective Tests of cricket's most intense match-up may have one or two negatives?

There's then the short-sightedness and stubbornness (to put it kindly, batshit mental could also suffice) approach by the coaching set-up to picking the team. Nobody is denying that Cook clearly wasn't the right man for the ODI captaincy gig, but given this was fairly evident about 18 months out why did it take until three weeks before flying to Australia before Eoin Morgan was appointed? A year and a half to grow into the role, select the players he wanted and put his stamp on his team was such an obvious thing to do it's almost pointless me even writing this given how many others have pointed this out. Ditto earmarking Ravi Bopara as the number seven who bowls a few handy overs a good few years ago and dropping him on the morning of the World Cup opener, refusing to select county cricket's stand-out limited overs batsman James Taylor until November - and then when he has unprecedented success batting at number three drop him down to six for no clear reason, and giving Chris Woakes the new ball for every game for months before giving it to Broad when the World Cup starts. "Joined up thinking" is the sort of management babble that Peter Moores has come out with at some point in a post-match presser, but there's been a distinct lack of it from England.

England's shortcomings aren't helped by the lack of rope fans are willing to give them. After the shocking way the Pietersen situation was handled (by both sides I must add), getting into bed with Australia and India to ensure top-level international cricket will now look like a glorified round-robin, along with high ticket prices, a lack of visibility of international players at county level, being told we're "outside cricket" in an official statement, not being from the right sort of families, and saying Moeen Ali should be "glad" to have been booed by fans in Birmingham - there's not a great deal of goodwill from anybody towards the England team at the moment, who unfortunately for them are the visible face of some shocking bureaucratic decision-making from the ECB.

This is all in focus due to this (as it stands) being the last World Cup that won't be a ten team invite-only members party. Despite the crippling affect this will have on the sport outside of the lucky few who got VIP tickets, the ICC are pressing on with it to avoid countries with the big TV markets missing out on getting through to the final stages. Never mind that the current 14 team structure is already weighted so heavily in that regard, ICC CEO Dave Richardson is ending all hope for 115 of the 125 countries that he represents of ever appearing on the biggest stage again. "A lack of competitive matches" cites Richardson for the contraction for the already criminally small tournament, though in his defence this was well before New Zealand chased down England's score in 12 and a bit overs.

Given the fact that the gap between cricket's haves and have-nots is now so small that an Irish win over West Indies last week (and even a Netherlands win over England in the last World T20) can barely be considered a shock, the contraction of the game by the money makers at the top of the ICC, ECB, Cricket Australia and BCCI is a decision that is both cowardly and incredibly damaging to the future of the sport. In chasing a few short-term dollars at a time when literally every other sport is growing, cricket isn't so much falling behind the times but becoming plain irrelevant. While the TV companies are still paying the big bucks to show matches that are watched by the hardcore cricket fans, in this country at least that number is dropping dramatically - and Sky surely won't be as keen to stand the ECB's finances up if nobody's going to watch their shows. And that isn't even getting close to touching on the decision to ignore potential fans in untapped markets where cricket isn't the major sport that it is in England, Australia or India. And if you want to be as crude as the ICC, there's a hell of a lot more money to be made if cricket makes it big in America or China than there is to be lost by seeing Sri Lanka fail to make a World Cup quarter-final.

So back to the beginning of this blog, why I haven't updated the old faithful Short Midwicket blog over the last while (though it's still been picking up a few views, so cheers for those). Sure, life has got in the way and it's harder to find time to put together a couple hundred words of quality cricket cricket with uni and work going on, but the main reason is that it's difficult to get excited about cricket in 2015. I nominally support a country who are destroying the future of the sport by chasing short-term profits, and in that short-term they are run so laughably it's beyond parody. Maybe it's having a few more years of life experience under my belt, but it wouldn't have been that long ago that an annihilation so embarrassing as this morning against New Zealand would have left me on the verge of tears, but today I'm almost ambivalent about it all (though not that much, seeing as I'm writing a blog on it). As Holland were outplaying England in the T20 win in Chittagong last year I was cheering along for the boys in orange (not the boys in solar red), and when Geoffrey Boycott says things like this (which might be the most arrogant, ill-informed and outright offensive quote I've seen in a long, long time)

it's hard not to want one of Scotland, Bangladesh or Afghanistan (if not all of them) to give England a Brendon McCullum style shellacking.

Whether I blog again any time soon remains to be seen (I imagine you're all on edge to read this excellent and well planned standard of writing where I knew exactly where I was going with throughout again) but it certainly is difficult to summon up any kind of emotion about English cricket that isn't just incredible disappointment. English cricket deserves better than those who are running it, just as the sport of cricket worldwide deserves so much better than those who are supposedly acting with the game's best interests at heart. Blogging and public dissent in so many areas can really be a force for change, with governments overthrown, bills passed and laws changed due to an active and growing blogosphere, but the most disappointing and dispiriting thing about world cricket is that no matter how many pieces I or the incredibly talented batch of cricket writers throw at the ICC, there almost certainly won't be any real change. Cricket is clearly heading for a crisis but will anything change at the top? It's almost as likely as me doing another episode of the Short Midwicket Podcast...

Ireland and Holland

Ireland and Holland play each other today, in their final games of this World Cup. While they've only mustered one win from their 10 games not against each other, they can look back at a World Cup where some of their players came of age.

Ryan ten Doeschate, if the world hadn't heard of him already from his numerous spells in T20 sides worldwide, have certainly heard of him following his two World Cup centuries. Paul Stirling's big hitting feats have also seen him catapulted to stardom, as well as his spinning exploits alongside the excellent George Dockrell. William Porterfield's captaincy has been up there amongst the best in the tournament, and he's won many plaudits with the way he's handled himself and his team throughout the World Cup. And of course, the star of the show for the Associates this World Cup has obviously been Kevin O'Brien, with his astonishing 100 against England unlikely to be forgotten in a hurry.

The Group B "minnows" Ireland and Holland have both been far more competitive than their Group A counterparts. Ireland have given really good games to Bangladesh, India and the West Indies (and of course beat England) whereas Holland have at times been the better side in a few of their games. However, in some of those close games, they've lacked the experience and know how of big games to get over the line - something the bigger sides knew how to do (except England, obviously).

It's often spoken that a "golden generation" will happen every now and again with the minnows, before they drift off into obscurity. A prime example of this is seen in Kenya - semi-finalists in 2003 but massively struggling in this edition. The main reason for that - a lack of regular games against top class opposition. These Irish and Dutch sides could also be classed as a golden generation, but they will need to play regular matches against the big boys in order to keep match sharp, and to improve their skills.

Both of these teams are in Europe - only a short hour long flight away from England. This summer, Sri Lanka and India will visit English shores for test and ODI series. Wouldn't it make perfect sense for Ireland or Holland to become involved in these games? We've seen in the seven-match borefest between Australia and England that bi-lateral ODI series can get slightly dull after a while, so why not introduce an associate side for a tri-series?

Administrators should enjoy it, as Ireland and Holland would bring plenty of vocal fans, as well as getting rid of the unneccessary dead rubbers that often finish series. It benefits the players of the test sides involved, as they are able to motivate themselves to play against new, different opposition, rather than groundhog day against the guys they've been slogging away against all summer. And it benefits the associates more than anyone else, as they are given the much needed experience of regular top-class cricket, where skills can be practiced and developed. And it attracts their players to remain in green or orange colours, instead of trying for moves to bigger sides. Surely this is a great idea for everyone?

This Ireland side could certainly be seen as a golden generation. They've got a young captain, young bowlers and a youthful batting line up. If allowed to develop and grow, they could really create some shockwaves in world cricket over the next few years. However, if not, they could fall apart, and not even be competitive (see here Kenya '11). If the ICC are serious about the development of the associate nations, they have to include teams like Ireland and Holland (and even Kenya, Canada, Scotland, USA, UAE, Italy and the Vatican City) in regular games against the regular countries. Yes, the fixture list is congested, but if pointless fifteen match ODI series between New Zealand and West Indies is changed to a five match tri-series including Afghanistan, then surely the benefits will be far greater than the few extra dollars from Star Sports. We've seen at this World Cup that the minnows are ready to take on the big boys - and don't forget Sri Lanka won the World Cup in 1996 only a few years after being considered minnows themselves.

Podcast - Squeaky Bum Time

Download this episode

This World Cup is really hotting up! At least, half of it is. While Group A's all sorted out, there's a lot of issues left to be dealt with in Group B, which is getting rather exciting. Places in the quarter finals beckon for some, and places on the bonfire of broken dreams for the rest. Will it be England, or Ireland, or Bangladesh, or West Indies, or South Africa or India? Or could it even be Holland who sneaks through? (It can't). Will got his calculator out to see who it could be. More updates on everyone's chances, and there's a new leader in the Fantasy League. Get in.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Wanting A New Country.

Ahead of the England - Ireland game, stories like this were always going to happen. At one stage, we could have seen Eoin Morgan line up for Ireland, 4 years after lining up for Ireland against them. And we will see Ed Joyce bat for the Irish, 4 years after playing for his adopted nation.

I've spoken literally days ago about players representing nations that aren't their own, and a bit longer ago about players chopping and changing their nation depending on the path their careers have taken.

And once more, with the big clash tomorrow between the respective "Rest of the World XIs" (harsh) the issue of playing for a different country than ones passport suggests has reared it's ugly head once more.

George Dockrell, the 81 year old 18 year old (because he has grey hair), who is Irish, has come out and said that he fancies playing for England. This is the same George Dockrell who is about to take on that said England side tomorrow. Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...

...
..
.

That would be quite a simplistic place (and a nice snappy ending) on which to finish this blog. But I want to say something more profound (and controversial) about this issue. Eoin Morgan should not be playing for England. Ed Joyce should never have played for England. And George Dockrell should never play for England.

The whole issue of nationality in cricket is a pretty murky one, and we've seen players like Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Craig Kieswetter (to name but four) play for England recently after previously being bona fide South Africans. We've also had Aussie Brendan Nash playing for the West Indies, Pakistani Imran Tahir and Zim Paul Harris represent South Africa, and Saffer Grant Elliot getting games for New Zealand. And that's just to name a small example from the test playing nations. And doesn't include the Strauss / Prior brigade of being born in a country but growing up somewhere else. Or the associates.

That's one side of the coin. The guys who for one reason or another, whether political, personal or cricketing grounds decide to chance their arm in another country, apply for a passport, and hope for selection. But the other side are the guys who play for one nation, realise that they'd prefer to play for another team, and move on. I'm looking at Dirk Nannes, Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce. Ryan ten Doeschate and Alexei Kervezee have both come out in the last week fluttering their eyes at other nations, and now Dockrell's said he fancies a move away.

What a remarkable lack of loyalty to the nation you're representing on the biggest stage in world Cricket! Yes, I can see there are clear advantages to playing for South Africa ahead of Holland, or England ahead of Ireland, but as soon as a player pulls on the jersey of one nation, that should be their nation. While the ICC's laws about qualification for a nation do need to be reviewed (the large amount of players I listed as examples off the top of my head is testament to that), they certainly need to outlaw the flip-flopping of players picking and choosing which passport they fancy using at any given time. Were I an Irish fan (by which I mean a 100% one rather than being a plastic Paddy), I'd be livid at Dockrell for basically coming out and shunning my nation, but I'm afraid they'd be more resigned to the fact that their brightest talents will always leave them.

Part One