Reports are coming out today that Michael Clarke is suffering from a recurrence of a back injury that's plagued him throughout his career. Since ascending to the captaincy in 2011, Clarke has almost single handedly led the way with the bat for his Australian side, and with the retirements of Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey is near enough the sole hope for the tourists when they attempt to win the Ashes back in a few weeks.
You'd have thought that news of Clarke's injury would be good news for England ahead of the Ashes series, with Australia so bereft of batting talent that Peter Siddle managed to top-score in the last test (where Clarke did not play), but for me, this is completely not the case. The 2005 Ashes will go down in English cricketing folklore as the series - the two best teams in the world going head to head, with all-time legends making up both sides in a gargantuan series that was fought hard, but more remarkably, was an incredibly high standard of cricket. England's achievement of winning back the urn after so many years was multiplied tenfold by the fact that they'd beaten the team of Warne, Ponting, Gilchrist, Hayden and McGrath. This was no hollow victory against a second-rate side. The events of 2005 converted a nation to cricket - kids who'd never previously heard of the game were enthralled by Vaughan's cover drive, Jones' reverse-swing, Flintoff's all-round heroics and Pietersen's haircut. And Ashley Giles.
A generation of cricketers grew up dreaming of taking on the likes of Warne and McGrath, and that series has helped produce a great many players who could become just as good as those England heroes in summers to come. Joe Root has spoken about how he used to pretend he was Michael Vaughan when playing in the garden, and Steven Finn has told of the benefit to his career that it was to watch Glenn McGrath play in that feted series.
But what if this Australian team roll over and get beaten 10-0? While English cricket would give themselves a big pat on the back, would there be the public interest? Would it get kids picking up cricket bats wanting to be the next Prior, Cook or Bell instead of the next Milner, Barry or Phil Jones? Without Clarke, a serious beating (OK, maybe not 10-0 but still a bit of a thumping) could be on the cards, which would obviously be bad news for Australian cricket, but in the long run could spell disaster for England. Australia need Clarke to get fit, but not as much as England do.
Showing posts with label Joe Root. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Root. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Monday, 27 May 2013
Making the case for Compton
So despite winning the first test by a canter and being miles ahead in the second, the English cricketing press would have you believe that Alastair Cook's brave boys are on the verge of meltdown. The bowling fab four of Anderson, Broad, Swann and Finn are all in the wickets, so they're safe. Cook's captaincy seems to be going well, so he's off the hook. Prior, Trott and Bell haven't done a great deal wrong recently, so they're free to go. The columns detailing Joe Root's ascent to the role of Saviour Of English Cricket look far too positive, which means somebody has to shoulder the blame for the inevitable wheels falling off. That poor bastard is Nick Compton, who despite a steady start to his test career is already "facing the chopping block", "staring down the barrel" or even a "dead man walking". Which all seems a little harsh and unnecessary.
Nick Compton is playing in his 9th test match. In that time he's been part of an England team that won a generation-defining series away in India, and scored back to back hundreds - two things plenty of players don't achieve in 90 test matches. In that time Compton's forged a decent understanding with Alastair Cook, making six partnerships over 50, with three of those being converted into hundred run stands, and a top partnership of 231. Compton has bought a stability and maturity to the top of the order born of over 100 county games for Middlesex and Somerset where he's proven that he's willing to work hard for his runs and not throw his wicket away. His promotion to test cricket came where England were at a crossroads at the top of the order after Andrew Strauss' retirement, and he's let nobody down. And while he made two hundreds away in New Zealand in a series where English batsmen otherwise struggled, four failures in the home series has apparently put his position in jeopardy.
Jonny Bairstow is currently in the England team due to an injury to Kevin Pietersen. Jonny Bairstow has played one fewer test than Compton, and has made two fewer hundreds. Going into this match he also averaged 10 runs fewer per innings. Bairstow (23 years old compared to Compton's nearly 30) has played 40 fewer first class games than Compton. The word on the street is for Bairstow to keep his spot in the team once Pietersen returns, with Compton being the man to miss out to make way for The Reintegrated One. Has there been anything in Bairstow's test career to suggest that he's more likely to make runs than Nick Compton? I'm not sure.
I don't want to take anything away from Jonny Bairstow as he will undoubtedly score thousands of test runs for England, but Nick Compton is someone who knows their game inside out and has been piling on runs for a long time - Bairstow is still attempting to get to grips with his, as the amount of times he's been dismissed hooking for Yorkshire this season have proved. Dropping Compton to keep Bairstow strikes me as bizarre - especially considering the upheaval that doing so would cause. Getting Compton straight outta there would mean Root would have to move up to open - admittedly something he's done throughout his career for Yorkshire, but something he'd have no experience with in an England shirt, and the first Ashes test is one hell of a place to find out whether someone can sink or swim. Besides, knee-jerk decisions and uncertainty didn't get England to the number one spot in the world (even if they did knock them off again) and it doesn't seem like Andy Flower or England's way to change for changes sake.
While an Ashes summer always brings some level of media hoopla, England will do well to ignore the armchair selectors (the irony of me writing this while sitting in an armchair is not lost on me) who want the next man to finally be the one who faces the chop. There's a lot going right about this England team at the minute, and while Nick Compton has struggled for form this series, he should very much be seen as a big part of the team who hope to go and win back to back Ashes in the next six months. It is very much the way of the world that no matter how well the team are going, someone has to be supposedly in the firing line, and the best thing team England can do is to back Compton to come good and make runs, which he's more than good enough to do. While speculation about who takes to the field on July 10th at Trent Bridge will continue until the teamsheets are in, I'm confident that the selectors and the powers that be will do the right thing and keep hold of Compo. Besides, the last English opener who was certain to be dropped before an Ashes series didn't do too badly, did he?
Nick Compton is playing in his 9th test match. In that time he's been part of an England team that won a generation-defining series away in India, and scored back to back hundreds - two things plenty of players don't achieve in 90 test matches. In that time Compton's forged a decent understanding with Alastair Cook, making six partnerships over 50, with three of those being converted into hundred run stands, and a top partnership of 231. Compton has bought a stability and maturity to the top of the order born of over 100 county games for Middlesex and Somerset where he's proven that he's willing to work hard for his runs and not throw his wicket away. His promotion to test cricket came where England were at a crossroads at the top of the order after Andrew Strauss' retirement, and he's let nobody down. And while he made two hundreds away in New Zealand in a series where English batsmen otherwise struggled, four failures in the home series has apparently put his position in jeopardy.
Jonny Bairstow is currently in the England team due to an injury to Kevin Pietersen. Jonny Bairstow has played one fewer test than Compton, and has made two fewer hundreds. Going into this match he also averaged 10 runs fewer per innings. Bairstow (23 years old compared to Compton's nearly 30) has played 40 fewer first class games than Compton. The word on the street is for Bairstow to keep his spot in the team once Pietersen returns, with Compton being the man to miss out to make way for The Reintegrated One. Has there been anything in Bairstow's test career to suggest that he's more likely to make runs than Nick Compton? I'm not sure.
I don't want to take anything away from Jonny Bairstow as he will undoubtedly score thousands of test runs for England, but Nick Compton is someone who knows their game inside out and has been piling on runs for a long time - Bairstow is still attempting to get to grips with his, as the amount of times he's been dismissed hooking for Yorkshire this season have proved. Dropping Compton to keep Bairstow strikes me as bizarre - especially considering the upheaval that doing so would cause. Getting Compton straight outta there would mean Root would have to move up to open - admittedly something he's done throughout his career for Yorkshire, but something he'd have no experience with in an England shirt, and the first Ashes test is one hell of a place to find out whether someone can sink or swim. Besides, knee-jerk decisions and uncertainty didn't get England to the number one spot in the world (even if they did knock them off again) and it doesn't seem like Andy Flower or England's way to change for changes sake.
While an Ashes summer always brings some level of media hoopla, England will do well to ignore the armchair selectors (the irony of me writing this while sitting in an armchair is not lost on me) who want the next man to finally be the one who faces the chop. There's a lot going right about this England team at the minute, and while Nick Compton has struggled for form this series, he should very much be seen as a big part of the team who hope to go and win back to back Ashes in the next six months. It is very much the way of the world that no matter how well the team are going, someone has to be supposedly in the firing line, and the best thing team England can do is to back Compton to come good and make runs, which he's more than good enough to do. While speculation about who takes to the field on July 10th at Trent Bridge will continue until the teamsheets are in, I'm confident that the selectors and the powers that be will do the right thing and keep hold of Compo. Besides, the last English opener who was certain to be dropped before an Ashes series didn't do too badly, did he?
Thursday, 29 March 2012
How to make England win in the subcontinent
So England have lost yet another test match in the subcontinent. The number one ranked test side have now lost four in a row - unthinkable only a few short months ago. So what's going wrong - and how can things be changed so England can be good again?
Well to start off, it's obvious where the problem lies. England's batting in the subcontinent - against spin in particular, is horrific. While the batsmen were booking in for bed, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and another night against India last summer, there's been none of that determination to remain at the crease in the four tests of this tour. While there are obvious technical flaws in most of the batsmen, much of the issue is mental. How can Rangana Herath, who England destroyed back at home turn from a pie-chucker into a world-beater? Herath is the same bowler as he was 8 months ago, there's very little mystery to him, but England's fragile mental state to spinners in the subcontinent made him look like a cross between Hedley Verity, Jim Laker and Shane Warne. Any issues over facing Herath are solely between the batsmen's ears, which is making their previously adequate techniques fall to mush when a spinner is thrown the ball.
So what can be done? In between trolling Indian fans on Twitter and combing his new hair, Michael Vaughan made a good point about mental baggage. Before 2005 England hadn't won an Ashes series in 18 years, and had been consistently humped by the Aussies, so most of the team that he inherited came into games against Australia expecting to lose. Vaughan then got rid of the players with mental scars about playing Australia, and got in a new brand of Ashes newbies who promptly went on and won. Vaughan's point was that a similar approach may well work here, with seemingly all of England's current side paralysed by fear of spin, and waking up in cold sweats after dreaming of Suraj Randiv's teesra. Basically, Vaughan advocated getting rid of the batsmen and starting again with a fresh bunch, a group who may or may not be as good technically, but at least wouldn't fall into the trap of consistently getting themselves out.
Vaughan's argument does have it's merits, but it would be very difficult to just "bring in a new bunch". To start, who would they be? As strong as the county system is at the moment, it isn't brimming with test-ready players who'll be able to swim when they're thrown in at the deep end. Plus, who do you drop? Cook, Bell, Pietersen and Trott all made double-tons last summer, Prior is the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world, Patel has only just come into the team, and Strauss is the captain. (More on him here). These are all clearly very good batsmen (how else would England have got to that number one ranking?) but seemingly only Jonathan Trott has the mental stability to dig in on the subcontinent. When the players get back to England in a few months, chances are that all of the batsmen will fill their boots and make everyone eat their words.
So what can be done? Well, if teams sometimes play 'horses for courses' bowlers at certain grounds, why not horses for courses batsmen? Monty Panesar is purely playing in these tests because they expect it to spin, so why not a spin-specialist batsman? Having a James Taylor or an Owais Shah to only play if the ball's going to rag square may be quite unorthodox, but why should the batting order be set in stone? Dropping Pietersen for Joe Root for subcontinental games may seem unfair to KP, but isn't Panesar getting picked a little harsh on Steve Finn? As England and India's fluctuating fortunes have proved, cricket is a very different game depending on where in the world it's being played, so surely the smart thing to do is to pick different players depending on the different conditions? It's certainly something worth considering, as while England may well beat the West Indies and South Africa in the summer on green seamers in Durham, the four test series that follows in India could be a very long one for England fans unless something drastic changes.
Well to start off, it's obvious where the problem lies. England's batting in the subcontinent - against spin in particular, is horrific. While the batsmen were booking in for bed, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and another night against India last summer, there's been none of that determination to remain at the crease in the four tests of this tour. While there are obvious technical flaws in most of the batsmen, much of the issue is mental. How can Rangana Herath, who England destroyed back at home turn from a pie-chucker into a world-beater? Herath is the same bowler as he was 8 months ago, there's very little mystery to him, but England's fragile mental state to spinners in the subcontinent made him look like a cross between Hedley Verity, Jim Laker and Shane Warne. Any issues over facing Herath are solely between the batsmen's ears, which is making their previously adequate techniques fall to mush when a spinner is thrown the ball.
So what can be done? In between trolling Indian fans on Twitter and combing his new hair, Michael Vaughan made a good point about mental baggage. Before 2005 England hadn't won an Ashes series in 18 years, and had been consistently humped by the Aussies, so most of the team that he inherited came into games against Australia expecting to lose. Vaughan then got rid of the players with mental scars about playing Australia, and got in a new brand of Ashes newbies who promptly went on and won. Vaughan's point was that a similar approach may well work here, with seemingly all of England's current side paralysed by fear of spin, and waking up in cold sweats after dreaming of Suraj Randiv's teesra. Basically, Vaughan advocated getting rid of the batsmen and starting again with a fresh bunch, a group who may or may not be as good technically, but at least wouldn't fall into the trap of consistently getting themselves out.
Vaughan's argument does have it's merits, but it would be very difficult to just "bring in a new bunch". To start, who would they be? As strong as the county system is at the moment, it isn't brimming with test-ready players who'll be able to swim when they're thrown in at the deep end. Plus, who do you drop? Cook, Bell, Pietersen and Trott all made double-tons last summer, Prior is the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world, Patel has only just come into the team, and Strauss is the captain. (More on him here). These are all clearly very good batsmen (how else would England have got to that number one ranking?) but seemingly only Jonathan Trott has the mental stability to dig in on the subcontinent. When the players get back to England in a few months, chances are that all of the batsmen will fill their boots and make everyone eat their words.
So what can be done? Well, if teams sometimes play 'horses for courses' bowlers at certain grounds, why not horses for courses batsmen? Monty Panesar is purely playing in these tests because they expect it to spin, so why not a spin-specialist batsman? Having a James Taylor or an Owais Shah to only play if the ball's going to rag square may be quite unorthodox, but why should the batting order be set in stone? Dropping Pietersen for Joe Root for subcontinental games may seem unfair to KP, but isn't Panesar getting picked a little harsh on Steve Finn? As England and India's fluctuating fortunes have proved, cricket is a very different game depending on where in the world it's being played, so surely the smart thing to do is to pick different players depending on the different conditions? It's certainly something worth considering, as while England may well beat the West Indies and South Africa in the summer on green seamers in Durham, the four test series that follows in India could be a very long one for England fans unless something drastic changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)