If last week's result was bad, this one was worse. To lose one test heavily is unlucky, but two in a week suggests there is something drastically wrong. The worst thing about it though is that for three and a half days of the test match England were in command, with a handy first innings lead being complemented by some fine second innings bowling, but the game just slipped away from them this morning after being slightly lax in the field and hopelessly abject with the bat. The 72 all out collapse - not even getting half way to the 145 target - was up there with England's biggest headless chicken chases, not knowing whether to stick or twist, they eventually got rolled by a high-class display of spin bowling from Rehman and Ajmal. The calls for change have been made, but who should get a stay of execution, and who should be led to the chopping block?
There is an argument, of course, that there's no need to make any panic decisions based on the first two defeats in over a year. The England of Flower and Strauss don't do panic - they trust in the players that they've picked to go out after failing and turn it around. The consistency of selection over the past few years has been crucial to England's ascent to the top of the rankings, with a settled team able to play without the fear of constantly worrying about their place. And by and large, this has been a good thing. Players like Pietersen, Bell and Cook were eased through lean spells, and the results, and those individual player's performances in 2011 proved the selectors right. While England have performed badly these two weeks in the Gulf, there is a school of thought that if the selectors continue to consistently make consistent selections, those players will turn it around and the wins will come.
To a degree, I agree with those thoughts. Certainly in the case of Bell and Pietersen, two players who've come under a lot of scrutiny this series for four low scores, their exploits over the last year, where they could arguably have been named the world's number one and two test batsmen, shows that they clearly have the class and ability to score lots of runs at test level, and the fact that they've happened to have two poor games in a row doesn't change that. Calls for them to be dropped strike me as ludicrous.
The two players that have had a much longer trough than peak have been Eoin Morgan and Andrew Strauss. While Cook, Pietersen, Bell and Trott can point to (near-enough) 50 or above averages, Morgan doesn't have this to fall back on. Morgan has flattered to deceive so far in his fairly brief test career, but after 15 tests an average of 31 is just not acceptable. Indeed, his first class record in general (averaging 36 from 68 games) is unremarkable to say the least, and certainly doesn't indicate a rapid improvement of scores from the Irishman. Eoin's class and ability in one day cricket is undoubted, and he got into the test team on the back of limited over exploits. However, he simply hasn't cut the mustard in whites for England, and should be dispensed with.
Andrew Strauss is a curious case - as excellent a batsman as he has been on his day, he just hasn't scored anywhere near enough runs for England in recent times. Since his run-a-ball half-century at Sydney this time last year, Strauss has only made one 50 in England colours, and in nine tests has only made 324 runs. For an opening batsman, this isn't good enough. While there have been some reactionary calls for Strauss to go, it shouldn't be forgotten that his batting isn't all that he brings to the team. A born captain and the natural leader of the team, taking Strauss out of the dressing room would leave a chasm that just wouldn't be filled, and could lead to imminent disaster. However, as important as it is that Strauss remains in the team, as it stands, it isn't tenable for the opening batsman to be so out of touch and form. Strauss's play at the moment reminds me of the final throes of Michael Vaughan's England career - so valued as a captain but so scratchy at the crease - incidentally the third test will be the first dead rubber England have constested since the South African series in 2008 that signalled the end for Vaughan.
So what options do England have? The only spare batsman in the England squad at the moment is Ravi Bopara, but replacing Morgan with the equally as frustrating Ravi seems more of a sidewards step than forwards. The England Lions are on tour at the moment, and of their contingent, the likes of James Taylor, Joe Root and Alex Hales have all been tipped for further international recognition. However, my solution for England's ills is a cunning one, and one that may not have even been thought about by the powers that be (probably with good reason). Strauss has really struggled against the new ball over recent times, which is sort of a bad thing for an opener to struggle against. With Morgan looking clueless in the middle order, a fix could be pushing Strauss down the order (thus keeping him in the side), with someone else coming in to open, be it Hales, Steve Davies or even Middlesex's Sam Robson (although I may be slightly biased about that one). England get the benefit of Strauss's captaincy and experience in the middle order, which as Misbah has showed is certainly no bad thing, and in their new opener they have the opportunity to pick someone who is better than Morgan or Bopara. While this is a very unlikely situation, I believe it is the right thing to do, so as such, I am hereby announcing the start of the #straussforsix bandwagon. Feel free to jump on it.
This second defeat is the first time in nearly four years that England have lost back-to-back, and the 74 all out is the lowest score since the 52 all out debacle in Jamaica. England are currently ranked as number one in the world, but can't legitimately lay claim to being the world's best until they address their stark batting issues in the subcontinent. The foundations are there for an excellent side - the bowling especially was absolutely world-class. But England have been carrying players for far too long, and some big decisions need to be made. While Bell and Pietersen do deserve to be in the team after last year's form, nobody should be "undroppable" (just see what being undroppable has done for India's test side...) and a big kick up the arse should help solve a few problems. However, if England genuinely are to be thought of as the world's best, they are going to have to rapidly step up their game in foreign conditions. Whether or not they can do it in time for the final test is debatable, but with seven more tests this calendar year to be held in the subcontinent, something has to be done.
Showing posts with label KP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KP. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Friday, 13 January 2012
England's Selection in a Spin
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...
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...
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, 18 October 2011
Why Can't England Win ODIs in India?
It's the question on everyone's lips. Or, more pertinently, how can England play so badly only weeks after stuffing India out of sight on a tour where the world champions failed to register one victory?
All of the old excuses have been trotted out. England can't play spin. England don't know how to bowl on the sub-continent. England bat too slowly in India. England throw their wickets away. And to an extent, England have lost their first two games by falling into those very easy to pigeon-hole stereotypes.
But, that's just what they are. Stereotypes. Just because England teams of 3 years, or 30 years ago couldn't play spin or bowl tightly on the subcontinent doesn't mean that every England player to ever pull on the three lions is doomed to fail in India. England are currently producing some of the most technically correct players in generations, which doesn't indicate weaknesses against spin. Any problems England are having, as Alastair Cook touched upon in his post-match interview after the second ODI are confined to the mind. England can't win in India, because they don't believe they can win in India.
Without wanting to go into any psycho-babble, England do appear to have a mental block about playing fifty over cricket. How else can a team that currently dominate two of the three formats seem so far away in the third? How else can players like Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, who seem so at ease when in whites appear so out of their depths when in the colours? KP and Bell have come off unbelievable summers in test cricket and could arguably be regarded as the two finest batsmen in the world, yet put them into a fifty over match and they freeze. Pietersen hasn't made an ODI century in three years, Bell in four. Pietersen's place is under threat and Bell can't even get into this England team. How else can this be explained other than a general English mental block to playing ODI cricket?
Yes, there clearly has been a marked improvement in English ODI fortunes. Following the seminal away victory against South Africa in 2009, the Andys Flower and Strauss (and latterly Cook) have turned around English thinking about fifty over cricket, come up with winning strategies and won quite a few series. Since that South African tour, England have lost only one head-to-head series, and that was at the back end of a generation-defining and exhausting Ashes win. Yes, rain did help, but this team have just finished a home summer where they beat both of the World Cup finalists, one of them to nil. So somewhere along the line England are doing something right.
The key, as was said earlier, is in the mind. Other than the 6-1 humiliation to Australia back in 2009, England have won every home ODI series under Andy Flower. West Indies, Australia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India have all perished. It's no surprise. England feel far more comfortable when at home with green pitches where the swing bowlers can exploit the friendly home surfaces. Just as England have a mental block about playing on the sub-continent, it seems that teams are travelling over to us and having mental blocks about playing on a cold, wet, windy night at Durham.
Two heavy defeats doesn't make this England team a bad one, just as three rain-affected wins over India doesn't make them a great one. Until England master their sub-continental yips, England fans are just going to have to accept that their brave boys are very good at home, but not as good when away. Beating all of those teams at home shows they are a good side, but being humbled by the world champions in their back yard just goes to show how far England have to go before they can really consider themselves ODI contenders.
All of the old excuses have been trotted out. England can't play spin. England don't know how to bowl on the sub-continent. England bat too slowly in India. England throw their wickets away. And to an extent, England have lost their first two games by falling into those very easy to pigeon-hole stereotypes.
But, that's just what they are. Stereotypes. Just because England teams of 3 years, or 30 years ago couldn't play spin or bowl tightly on the subcontinent doesn't mean that every England player to ever pull on the three lions is doomed to fail in India. England are currently producing some of the most technically correct players in generations, which doesn't indicate weaknesses against spin. Any problems England are having, as Alastair Cook touched upon in his post-match interview after the second ODI are confined to the mind. England can't win in India, because they don't believe they can win in India.
Without wanting to go into any psycho-babble, England do appear to have a mental block about playing fifty over cricket. How else can a team that currently dominate two of the three formats seem so far away in the third? How else can players like Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, who seem so at ease when in whites appear so out of their depths when in the colours? KP and Bell have come off unbelievable summers in test cricket and could arguably be regarded as the two finest batsmen in the world, yet put them into a fifty over match and they freeze. Pietersen hasn't made an ODI century in three years, Bell in four. Pietersen's place is under threat and Bell can't even get into this England team. How else can this be explained other than a general English mental block to playing ODI cricket?
Yes, there clearly has been a marked improvement in English ODI fortunes. Following the seminal away victory against South Africa in 2009, the Andys Flower and Strauss (and latterly Cook) have turned around English thinking about fifty over cricket, come up with winning strategies and won quite a few series. Since that South African tour, England have lost only one head-to-head series, and that was at the back end of a generation-defining and exhausting Ashes win. Yes, rain did help, but this team have just finished a home summer where they beat both of the World Cup finalists, one of them to nil. So somewhere along the line England are doing something right.
The key, as was said earlier, is in the mind. Other than the 6-1 humiliation to Australia back in 2009, England have won every home ODI series under Andy Flower. West Indies, Australia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India have all perished. It's no surprise. England feel far more comfortable when at home with green pitches where the swing bowlers can exploit the friendly home surfaces. Just as England have a mental block about playing on the sub-continent, it seems that teams are travelling over to us and having mental blocks about playing on a cold, wet, windy night at Durham.
Two heavy defeats doesn't make this England team a bad one, just as three rain-affected wins over India doesn't make them a great one. Until England master their sub-continental yips, England fans are just going to have to accept that their brave boys are very good at home, but not as good when away. Beating all of those teams at home shows they are a good side, but being humbled by the world champions in their back yard just goes to show how far England have to go before they can really consider themselves ODI contenders.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Bairstow Blasts His Way Into the Reckoning
It may only have been in a warm-up, but Jonny Bairstow's unbeaten 104 from just 54 balls against Hyderabad means omitting him from the first ODI is nigh on impossible. Bairstow's talents are obvious, and it's no longer a case of if or when he gets a regular spot in England's team, more a case of how long he'll be a permanent fixture.
With Bairstow all but nailed on, somebody from the established order is going to have to make way to accomodate him. Assuming England will go in with Cook and Kieswetter opening, with Patel at seven so he can help out with some spin, there are now four potential berths in the England middle order that need filling, with five players vying for them. And arguably, only young pup Jonny Bairstow is guaranteed of his place ahead of the old guard that he's threatening.
The question of who will bat at three is a conundrum of the highest order. With an inhumanly high average, Jonathan Trott must surely be a shoo-in, but doubts over his scoring rate do remain. There is an argument that he could be used as a "horses for courses" batsman in ODIs, just as we see bowlers picked if the pitch suits their strength, we might only see Trott play if the pitch is slow and England need someone to dig in. However, as proved today (where Trott put on 74 from 68 alongside the Bairstow carnage), he isn't as much of a slouch as often thought, and his stability down the other end gives licence to the likes of Bairstow to go big early. For me, Trott should play.
Ravi Bopara is in the form of his life, and finally coming good after so many years of promise. His handy medium pace gives the bowling another option, and dropping him is almost unthinkable.
Which just leaves one place in the middle order, and two very big names fighting over it. Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, mainstays of pretty much every England team over the past six years and amongst the two best batsmen in world cricket, are vying for the one remaining spot. On the face of it it seems very odd, but quite frankly neither have delivered in ODI cricket for a long time. Kevin Pietersen started out by making ODI tons for fun, but hasn't made it to three figures since the last time England toured India, where he captained the side back in 2008. And Ian Bell doesn't even have the luxury of a strong ODI history on his side, with just one solitary ODI century back in 2007, 59 games ago.
Both men have played over 100 ODIs, and both are clearly talented batsmen. But for whatever reason, neither have performed in 50 over cricket for England over the past couple of years, and their places are under threat. It is a toss up as to who gets the nod for this Indian series, but with Eoin Morgan still to return, the emergence of Jonny Bairstow could signal the death knell for both Pietersen and Bell's ODI careers.
With Bairstow all but nailed on, somebody from the established order is going to have to make way to accomodate him. Assuming England will go in with Cook and Kieswetter opening, with Patel at seven so he can help out with some spin, there are now four potential berths in the England middle order that need filling, with five players vying for them. And arguably, only young pup Jonny Bairstow is guaranteed of his place ahead of the old guard that he's threatening.
The question of who will bat at three is a conundrum of the highest order. With an inhumanly high average, Jonathan Trott must surely be a shoo-in, but doubts over his scoring rate do remain. There is an argument that he could be used as a "horses for courses" batsman in ODIs, just as we see bowlers picked if the pitch suits their strength, we might only see Trott play if the pitch is slow and England need someone to dig in. However, as proved today (where Trott put on 74 from 68 alongside the Bairstow carnage), he isn't as much of a slouch as often thought, and his stability down the other end gives licence to the likes of Bairstow to go big early. For me, Trott should play.
Ravi Bopara is in the form of his life, and finally coming good after so many years of promise. His handy medium pace gives the bowling another option, and dropping him is almost unthinkable.
Which just leaves one place in the middle order, and two very big names fighting over it. Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, mainstays of pretty much every England team over the past six years and amongst the two best batsmen in world cricket, are vying for the one remaining spot. On the face of it it seems very odd, but quite frankly neither have delivered in ODI cricket for a long time. Kevin Pietersen started out by making ODI tons for fun, but hasn't made it to three figures since the last time England toured India, where he captained the side back in 2008. And Ian Bell doesn't even have the luxury of a strong ODI history on his side, with just one solitary ODI century back in 2007, 59 games ago.
Both men have played over 100 ODIs, and both are clearly talented batsmen. But for whatever reason, neither have performed in 50 over cricket for England over the past couple of years, and their places are under threat. It is a toss up as to who gets the nod for this Indian series, but with Eoin Morgan still to return, the emergence of Jonny Bairstow could signal the death knell for both Pietersen and Bell's ODI careers.
Monday, 12 September 2011
The T20 Captaincy Question
So with the news that T20 captain Stuart Broad's going to be out for a few months with a sore shoulder, as will vice-captain Eoin Morgan (spookily also with a sore shoulder), England's selectors are going to have to appoint their fifth captain of the summer ahead of the fairly meaningless T20 internationals against the West Indies in a couple of weeks. While the games will come at the end of a tiring summer and will probably be played by heavily depleted / disinterested sides, the matches (and perhaps even the away T20 in India after the ODI series out there) will give someone the opportunity to step onto the first rung of England captaincy - the chance to impress all with their cricketing brains, and the ability to tell their grandchildren that they were England captain.
So who should take the job? There are a few candidates, but as with the appointment of Broad himself at the start of the summer, nobody really jumped off the page. So I'll start with the FEC himself, and the man who already leads England's 50 over outfit, Alastair Cook. Everyone knows that Cooky is just serving an apprenticeship before being anointed England test captain, and taking on a couple of T20 games will only help his development and is another step of progression for him personally. However, Cook has long been deemed unsuitable to play T20 cricket for England. If he hasn't been in England's T20 plans thus far, with the bigger picture of the World T20 on the horizon, the selectors are unlikely to want to pick someone just for some one-off matches, which could rule Cook out. However, he has spoken of his desire to get into England's T20 team, and given the unbelievable form he's shown recently (including a T20 style innings as he guided England home at the Rose Bowl v India), this may just be the opportunity for him to get back into the shortest format side, and grab yet another captaincy in his quest for total control over English cricket.
The "not being in the side" argument would also appear to rule out some of the other senior players in England's side, with both Ian Bell and Jimmy Anderson not actually being in the T20 team. While they would both be major contenders in either of the other formats, the fact that they aren't (like Cook) actually deemed suitable for T20s should see them excluded from the reckoning.
With England's T20 team looking more pre-school than university, actual senior players who are regularly playing in there are fairly thin on the ground. In fact, only Graeme Swann and Kevin Pietersen could be deemed experienced enough to lead an England side, and both have their obvious fallbacks. Swann, for all of his laddish brilliance probably wouldn't be the best choice as he'd either do something inappropriate and unbecoming of an England captain, or by not being "one of the lads" the dressing room would miss out on Swanny's antics and the boost they give. And KP would come with the baggage of being KP, and everything that brings and has brought in the past. Besides, he may not want another crack at it after last time. However, despite how it all ended, Pietersen was actually not a tactically bad captain, and for only a one-off could consider having another go. And given that it is just for a couple of days, the powers that be may decide that Swann's influence wouldn't be missed that much, or even that even he couldn't create THAT much carnage in two days.
Another option would be giving it to an exciting youngster in order to help them progress, and given the relatively low pressure situation that it will be, that may not be the worst idea in the world. Current Lions captain James Taylor could be a shout, but after just one international cap, handing him the captaincy might be a touch premature.
However you look at it, the two games against the West Indies are turning out to be a bit of a nightmare. The players don't want to be playing them, and the selectors don't want to be forced into naming an interim T20 captain. However, a captain must be named, and while it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, someone will be able to proudly boast that for two wet September days at The Oval, they were England captain.
So who should take the job? There are a few candidates, but as with the appointment of Broad himself at the start of the summer, nobody really jumped off the page. So I'll start with the FEC himself, and the man who already leads England's 50 over outfit, Alastair Cook. Everyone knows that Cooky is just serving an apprenticeship before being anointed England test captain, and taking on a couple of T20 games will only help his development and is another step of progression for him personally. However, Cook has long been deemed unsuitable to play T20 cricket for England. If he hasn't been in England's T20 plans thus far, with the bigger picture of the World T20 on the horizon, the selectors are unlikely to want to pick someone just for some one-off matches, which could rule Cook out. However, he has spoken of his desire to get into England's T20 team, and given the unbelievable form he's shown recently (including a T20 style innings as he guided England home at the Rose Bowl v India), this may just be the opportunity for him to get back into the shortest format side, and grab yet another captaincy in his quest for total control over English cricket.
The "not being in the side" argument would also appear to rule out some of the other senior players in England's side, with both Ian Bell and Jimmy Anderson not actually being in the T20 team. While they would both be major contenders in either of the other formats, the fact that they aren't (like Cook) actually deemed suitable for T20s should see them excluded from the reckoning.
With England's T20 team looking more pre-school than university, actual senior players who are regularly playing in there are fairly thin on the ground. In fact, only Graeme Swann and Kevin Pietersen could be deemed experienced enough to lead an England side, and both have their obvious fallbacks. Swann, for all of his laddish brilliance probably wouldn't be the best choice as he'd either do something inappropriate and unbecoming of an England captain, or by not being "one of the lads" the dressing room would miss out on Swanny's antics and the boost they give. And KP would come with the baggage of being KP, and everything that brings and has brought in the past. Besides, he may not want another crack at it after last time. However, despite how it all ended, Pietersen was actually not a tactically bad captain, and for only a one-off could consider having another go. And given that it is just for a couple of days, the powers that be may decide that Swann's influence wouldn't be missed that much, or even that even he couldn't create THAT much carnage in two days.
Another option would be giving it to an exciting youngster in order to help them progress, and given the relatively low pressure situation that it will be, that may not be the worst idea in the world. Current Lions captain James Taylor could be a shout, but after just one international cap, handing him the captaincy might be a touch premature.
However you look at it, the two games against the West Indies are turning out to be a bit of a nightmare. The players don't want to be playing them, and the selectors don't want to be forced into naming an interim T20 captain. However, a captain must be named, and while it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, someone will be able to proudly boast that for two wet September days at The Oval, they were England captain.
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Missing Morgan Mixes Up the Middle Order
The news that Eoin Morgan has picked up a shoulder injury that will see him miss the rest of an India ODI series that already seems to have fizzled out into a damp squib may not seem important, but it couldn't have come at a worse time for England. With a resting Kevin Pietersen missing, and now Eoin Morgan, England have absolutely no idea of their strongest ODI batting line up, and will have to wait a further few months to organise themselves properly so they can discover it.
The idea of resting players is not a new one, and it is by no means a ridiculous one. Last summer, Kevin Pietersen looked jaded and forlorn - a shadow of himself having struggled through a test series against Pakistan. So, like it or not, KP sat out the ODI series, and has since made a couple of double tons and rediscovered the form that made him one of the world's best batsmen. And it's also clear that Alastair Cook, who wasn't at the time involved in England's limited over plans clearly benefited from the time out of international cricket at the end of last summer, seen in the winter to end all winters for Cook. International cricketers can't be expected to play 24/7, 365 days a year or they'll burn out - the current plague of injuries surrounding the Indian team is testament to that.
However, Pietersen missing last year's ODI series confused the selectors in the ODI format, leading to a very haphazard build up to the World Cup ultimately ending in Pietersen being shoehorned in to open, and nobody really knowing what England's best team was. Following the ultimate disappointment that the World Cup proved to be, England had the chance to reestablish themselves as an ODI side, with a new captain, and a blank canvas on which to create the best team possible. However, the middle order is still cause for concern.
Do the selectors want to use the tried and trusted batsmen from the tests with Trott batting at three, Pietersen at four, and Bell and Morgan at five and six? But is that line-up lacking in 'explosive' players? Do they want to bring in young Ben Stokes for his all-round abilities (even though he can't bowl at the moment, which was a decision not particularly thought through...), which means that someone has to make way? Or do they want to pack the side with one-day specialists like Bopara or Patel? The absence of Pietersen automatically means it isn't England's strongest side, meaning somebody is only temping for KP, and now with Morgan missing it means that more short-term fixes are going to be made towards a long-term problem.
England's lead-up to the World Cup was very poor, and while selectors have spoken about learning from their mistakes and moving on, it's plain to see that they still have no idea who they want in or how they want them to play. With Pietersen and Morgan, England's two ODI trump cards going to be out for the rest of the series, the search for a consistent and settled team will go on. It's just as well that against the world champions, England have their ever faithful match-saving joker. The September English weather.
The idea of resting players is not a new one, and it is by no means a ridiculous one. Last summer, Kevin Pietersen looked jaded and forlorn - a shadow of himself having struggled through a test series against Pakistan. So, like it or not, KP sat out the ODI series, and has since made a couple of double tons and rediscovered the form that made him one of the world's best batsmen. And it's also clear that Alastair Cook, who wasn't at the time involved in England's limited over plans clearly benefited from the time out of international cricket at the end of last summer, seen in the winter to end all winters for Cook. International cricketers can't be expected to play 24/7, 365 days a year or they'll burn out - the current plague of injuries surrounding the Indian team is testament to that.
However, Pietersen missing last year's ODI series confused the selectors in the ODI format, leading to a very haphazard build up to the World Cup ultimately ending in Pietersen being shoehorned in to open, and nobody really knowing what England's best team was. Following the ultimate disappointment that the World Cup proved to be, England had the chance to reestablish themselves as an ODI side, with a new captain, and a blank canvas on which to create the best team possible. However, the middle order is still cause for concern.
Do the selectors want to use the tried and trusted batsmen from the tests with Trott batting at three, Pietersen at four, and Bell and Morgan at five and six? But is that line-up lacking in 'explosive' players? Do they want to bring in young Ben Stokes for his all-round abilities (even though he can't bowl at the moment, which was a decision not particularly thought through...), which means that someone has to make way? Or do they want to pack the side with one-day specialists like Bopara or Patel? The absence of Pietersen automatically means it isn't England's strongest side, meaning somebody is only temping for KP, and now with Morgan missing it means that more short-term fixes are going to be made towards a long-term problem.
England's lead-up to the World Cup was very poor, and while selectors have spoken about learning from their mistakes and moving on, it's plain to see that they still have no idea who they want in or how they want them to play. With Pietersen and Morgan, England's two ODI trump cards going to be out for the rest of the series, the search for a consistent and settled team will go on. It's just as well that against the world champions, England have their ever faithful match-saving joker. The September English weather.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Rankin for England?
A piece of cricket news that has slipped under the radar for many today has been the addition of Warwickshire's Boyd Rankin into the England Lions squad for the rest of their One Day series against Sri Lanka A. On the surface, this may seem a trivial piece of news, but when you realise that this is the same Boyd Rankin who's gone to two World Cups and played 32 ODIs for Ireland, then it suddenly gets a bit more interesting.
Boyd, the big fast bowler from Derry, has had quite a bit of international success so far in his career. Ireland's leading wicket taker at the seminal 2007 World Cup and the leader of the attack in 2011, Rankin is a massive (quite literally, standing at 6ft 8ins) part of the Irish team who have made huge strides in international cricket over the past few years. However, he's been on England's radar for the past couple of years, and it looks as though he's about to follow fellow ex-Irish internationals Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce in turning out for England. A country he isn't from.
I've written before just how much I sympathise with Irish cricketers. Any cricketer, anywhere in the world, wants to play test cricket, and sadly at the moment that's something that isn't offered to Irish cricketers. It's been well publicised that both Joyce and Morgan repatriated themselves in the search for test cricket (Morgan made it, Joyce didn't), and it appears that Rankin is following the same path. However. They'd be representing England despite not being from England, and while hoping to play test cricket certainly is a noble goal, I'd like to play football for Brazil, but as I am not from Brazil, I am not going to realise this ambition. (And it's not because I'm not good enough, because I am...)
The issue of non-English people playing for England is a sticky one. As great as it is that England are flying so high in world cricket at the moment, the fact that Pietersen, Trott, Kieswetter, Dernbach, Morgan and Lumb have got us there does make the whole thing slightly hollow. While I can understand that the lure of test cricket as well as a much more professional structure in English cricket would tempt Boyd Rankin, his would be another name on the list of foreign imports into the English team. Which doesn't quite sit with me.
It's a tough one, and without wanting to sound all David Starkey about it, it shouldn't really be allowed. People have the fortune, or the misfortune, to be born in certain parts of the world, and as such, should represent that nation in international sport. Otherwise it's hardly inter-national, is it? At a time where Ireland could be on the brink of achieving some great things (and as such, need all of the talent they have), Boyd could be turning his back on them to chase his test dream. Ireland are a team who could be on the verge of something big, but how can they progress if their brightest talents abandon them as soon as England flutter their eyelids? On the 25th August, England travel over to Stormont for an ODI against Ireland. It's not inconcievable that with Rankin being named in the Lions squad (effectively a reserve international team) and England's first choice bowlers potentially being rested after a tough Indian test series that Rankin gets picked by England. With test cricket potentially beckoning, if Ireland are able to tempt him to stay with them, it will show the massive strides being made by Cricket Ireland. If they can't, it could open the floodgates for the likes of Stirling, Dockrell and plenty of other young Irish talent who rightly or wrongly fancy a craic at playing for England.
And a quote to show Irish fans that not all of their players want to cross the Irish Sea... Kevin O'Brien: "Play for England? You must be joking! I'm Irish, I want to play for Ireland!"
Boyd, the big fast bowler from Derry, has had quite a bit of international success so far in his career. Ireland's leading wicket taker at the seminal 2007 World Cup and the leader of the attack in 2011, Rankin is a massive (quite literally, standing at 6ft 8ins) part of the Irish team who have made huge strides in international cricket over the past few years. However, he's been on England's radar for the past couple of years, and it looks as though he's about to follow fellow ex-Irish internationals Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce in turning out for England. A country he isn't from.
I've written before just how much I sympathise with Irish cricketers. Any cricketer, anywhere in the world, wants to play test cricket, and sadly at the moment that's something that isn't offered to Irish cricketers. It's been well publicised that both Joyce and Morgan repatriated themselves in the search for test cricket (Morgan made it, Joyce didn't), and it appears that Rankin is following the same path. However. They'd be representing England despite not being from England, and while hoping to play test cricket certainly is a noble goal, I'd like to play football for Brazil, but as I am not from Brazil, I am not going to realise this ambition. (And it's not because I'm not good enough, because I am...)
The issue of non-English people playing for England is a sticky one. As great as it is that England are flying so high in world cricket at the moment, the fact that Pietersen, Trott, Kieswetter, Dernbach, Morgan and Lumb have got us there does make the whole thing slightly hollow. While I can understand that the lure of test cricket as well as a much more professional structure in English cricket would tempt Boyd Rankin, his would be another name on the list of foreign imports into the English team. Which doesn't quite sit with me.
It's a tough one, and without wanting to sound all David Starkey about it, it shouldn't really be allowed. People have the fortune, or the misfortune, to be born in certain parts of the world, and as such, should represent that nation in international sport. Otherwise it's hardly inter-national, is it? At a time where Ireland could be on the brink of achieving some great things (and as such, need all of the talent they have), Boyd could be turning his back on them to chase his test dream. Ireland are a team who could be on the verge of something big, but how can they progress if their brightest talents abandon them as soon as England flutter their eyelids? On the 25th August, England travel over to Stormont for an ODI against Ireland. It's not inconcievable that with Rankin being named in the Lions squad (effectively a reserve international team) and England's first choice bowlers potentially being rested after a tough Indian test series that Rankin gets picked by England. With test cricket potentially beckoning, if Ireland are able to tempt him to stay with them, it will show the massive strides being made by Cricket Ireland. If they can't, it could open the floodgates for the likes of Stirling, Dockrell and plenty of other young Irish talent who rightly or wrongly fancy a craic at playing for England.
And a quote to show Irish fans that not all of their players want to cross the Irish Sea... Kevin O'Brien: "Play for England? You must be joking! I'm Irish, I want to play for Ireland!"
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
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, theenforcer 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!
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
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!
Friday, 29 July 2011
Morgan's Place No Pressing Issue
The nature of the English cricket press is that there always needs to be someone sweating over their place. Last summer, it was Alastair Cook, but he then went on to have the winter to end all winters. The spotlight then moved to Kevin Pietersen, who has since refound his top form. Last week it was Stuart Broad who was the next in line to be throw overboard, instead he's had a few of his best days in test cricket. So who's next on death row as the cricket press bottle spins onto it's next target? Well, after three failures in a row, it's going to be Eoin Morgan.
Eoin Morgan, for all of his ODI success, has had a quiet start to his test career. Other than the excellent ton against Pakistan last summer, he's yet to stamp his mark on test cricket and firmly assert himself as England's number six batsman. When Paul Collingwood retired, a space opened up in the England batting order, and the selectors chose Morgan; basically saying that he was their man to play in the middle order for the next few years. This wasn't that long ago.
England have been actually doing pretty well in test cricket over the past while, so there aren't many players who are under pressure for their place in the team. However, as there always needs to be someone in trouble (otherwise there is no story), Morgan is the man they've picked.
Techically, there's a lot that Eoin Morgan has to work on. But there's no denying that he is an absolute class batsman who can score a lot of runs, and has the perfect temprament for test cricket. In three innings this series, Morgan's had a couple of dubious decisions, and ended up with three low scores. This doesn't automatically make him a bad player or that he should be dropped. These things happen. It wasn't that long ago he was being backed as a permanenent member of the England team for years to come - so what's changed?
England's selectorial policy under Andy Flower has been as far removed from the knee-jerk as possible, with players going through lean spells being nursed back into form and returning to past glories. Eoin Morgan may not have the illustrious record of some of his teammates, but he certainly has the same ability. And it was only last month that Flower, Geoff Miller, and Strauss confirmed this by picking him for the Sri Lanka series.
England haven't got where they are today by making snap decisions and dropping out of form players. Eoin Morgan may be in a slight trough and James Taylor may be on the crest of a wave, but there's no need for impulsive change for changes sake on the back of one poor day of test cricket. Luckily, I think the selectors and Andy Flower know that, but the real issue is whether the press know that too.
Eoin Morgan, for all of his ODI success, has had a quiet start to his test career. Other than the excellent ton against Pakistan last summer, he's yet to stamp his mark on test cricket and firmly assert himself as England's number six batsman. When Paul Collingwood retired, a space opened up in the England batting order, and the selectors chose Morgan; basically saying that he was their man to play in the middle order for the next few years. This wasn't that long ago.
England have been actually doing pretty well in test cricket over the past while, so there aren't many players who are under pressure for their place in the team. However, as there always needs to be someone in trouble (otherwise there is no story), Morgan is the man they've picked.
Techically, there's a lot that Eoin Morgan has to work on. But there's no denying that he is an absolute class batsman who can score a lot of runs, and has the perfect temprament for test cricket. In three innings this series, Morgan's had a couple of dubious decisions, and ended up with three low scores. This doesn't automatically make him a bad player or that he should be dropped. These things happen. It wasn't that long ago he was being backed as a permanenent member of the England team for years to come - so what's changed?
England's selectorial policy under Andy Flower has been as far removed from the knee-jerk as possible, with players going through lean spells being nursed back into form and returning to past glories. Eoin Morgan may not have the illustrious record of some of his teammates, but he certainly has the same ability. And it was only last month that Flower, Geoff Miller, and Strauss confirmed this by picking him for the Sri Lanka series.
England haven't got where they are today by making snap decisions and dropping out of form players. Eoin Morgan may be in a slight trough and James Taylor may be on the crest of a wave, but there's no need for impulsive change for changes sake on the back of one poor day of test cricket. Luckily, I think the selectors and Andy Flower know that, but the real issue is whether the press know that too.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Test Cricket's Fitting 2000th
Last week at Lord's saw the 2000th match in the history of test cricket, and luckily it was a fitting match to mark the historic deadline.
In the 134 years since the inception of test cricket, there have been some fine games. From gripping nailbiters such as Edgbaston 2005 to back-from-the-dead epics like Headingley 1981, the ebb and flow of test cricket has led to a level of drama and intrigue that no other sport can offer. While not every game is a thriller, even the most hideously rain-affected or one-sided match will have it's suspenseful moments where the balance of power will shift and both sides feel they can win. Could you say that about a twenty20 game?
With test cricket being the pinnacle of the sport, the world's best are drawn into competition, which leads to a heightened level of competition to any other standard of cricket. Test cricket is, always has been, and always will be the ultimate level of cricket. Only the very best can claim to be test cricketers.
The 2000th test bought this sharply into focus. Amongst the teams were the two top run scorers in the history of cricket, with one of them (Rahul Dravid) making an excellent century as his partners were vanquished at the other end. As well as boasting players who've taken over 400 test wicket, the match also saw the absolute cream of the crop of both batting and bowling take to the field. These would be the men to represent Earth in the hypothetical game against Mars. And the quality shown by those players lived up to their reputations, with Kevin Pietersen's unbeaten double ton winning out in the battle for man of the match against Dravid and Prior's centuries, Broad and Ishant's display of wicket to wicket bowling and a masterclass in swing bowling from James Anderson. Bat and ball were battling throughout, and the quality on show was as good as any of the previous 1999 tests that took place before this week at Lord's.
There are a growing number of naysayers who proclaim that test cricket is a finished format, and twenty20 is where the money, entertainment, and direction of cricket is heading. They point to dwindling crowds, boring draws caused by flat pitches, and players choosing to freelance for T20 sides rather than represent their country in test cricket. However, the 2000th test was the perfect reposte to any non-believers. The quality of cricket on show was outstanding, the atmosphere at Lord's (especially on the fifth day) was incredible, and the drama was gripping. Test cricket may not be perfect and does give the world the odd damp squib, but sometimes it conjures up those magical few days of cricket that leaves everyone on the edge of their seat and begging for more. So happy 2000 to test cricket, and here's to the next 2000. And plenty more of those magical tests to come.
In the 134 years since the inception of test cricket, there have been some fine games. From gripping nailbiters such as Edgbaston 2005 to back-from-the-dead epics like Headingley 1981, the ebb and flow of test cricket has led to a level of drama and intrigue that no other sport can offer. While not every game is a thriller, even the most hideously rain-affected or one-sided match will have it's suspenseful moments where the balance of power will shift and both sides feel they can win. Could you say that about a twenty20 game?
With test cricket being the pinnacle of the sport, the world's best are drawn into competition, which leads to a heightened level of competition to any other standard of cricket. Test cricket is, always has been, and always will be the ultimate level of cricket. Only the very best can claim to be test cricketers.
The 2000th test bought this sharply into focus. Amongst the teams were the two top run scorers in the history of cricket, with one of them (Rahul Dravid) making an excellent century as his partners were vanquished at the other end. As well as boasting players who've taken over 400 test wicket, the match also saw the absolute cream of the crop of both batting and bowling take to the field. These would be the men to represent Earth in the hypothetical game against Mars. And the quality shown by those players lived up to their reputations, with Kevin Pietersen's unbeaten double ton winning out in the battle for man of the match against Dravid and Prior's centuries, Broad and Ishant's display of wicket to wicket bowling and a masterclass in swing bowling from James Anderson. Bat and ball were battling throughout, and the quality on show was as good as any of the previous 1999 tests that took place before this week at Lord's.
There are a growing number of naysayers who proclaim that test cricket is a finished format, and twenty20 is where the money, entertainment, and direction of cricket is heading. They point to dwindling crowds, boring draws caused by flat pitches, and players choosing to freelance for T20 sides rather than represent their country in test cricket. However, the 2000th test was the perfect reposte to any non-believers. The quality of cricket on show was outstanding, the atmosphere at Lord's (especially on the fifth day) was incredible, and the drama was gripping. Test cricket may not be perfect and does give the world the odd damp squib, but sometimes it conjures up those magical few days of cricket that leaves everyone on the edge of their seat and begging for more. So happy 2000 to test cricket, and here's to the next 2000. And plenty more of those magical tests to come.
Podcast - Billy Bowden and the Half Hearted DRS
Subscribe to the Short Midwicket Podcast on iTunes!
Or, download this via Podbean
The 2000th test was played, and it was a fitting test. England won, and had some quality performances, whilst India lost despite some valiant stuff with both bat and ball. Will talks about the resurgence of Stuart Broad as a test bowler (whilst taking credit for this return to form) as well as KP and Prior's runs. Sachin is sung about, but Will hails Dravid, and ponders what would happen if Sachin didn't exist. There's some thoughts on the use of the DRS, and musings on the health of test cricket. All of this, and a preview of the Trent Bridge test. What a great way to spend twenty four minutes and ten seconds!
Or, download this via Podbean
The 2000th test was played, and it was a fitting test. England won, and had some quality performances, whilst India lost despite some valiant stuff with both bat and ball. Will talks about the resurgence of Stuart Broad as a test bowler (whilst taking credit for this return to form) as well as KP and Prior's runs. Sachin is sung about, but Will hails Dravid, and ponders what would happen if Sachin didn't exist. There's some thoughts on the use of the DRS, and musings on the health of test cricket. All of this, and a preview of the Trent Bridge test. What a great way to spend twenty four minutes and ten seconds!
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.
Sunday, 3 July 2011
A Ship With Two Anchors
Let's make this clear. Jonathan Trott is a very good batsman. You don't get to score the sheer weight of runs he has in both test and ODI cricket without being a master of your craft. For all of his run scoring brilliance, you'd be feeling very generous to describe Trott as a 'flair' player. Not for him the switch-hits of Pietersen, reverse-flicks of Morgan or even sumptuous cover drives of Bell. Instead comes the push off the legs for a single, or the ever dependable block. This means Trott will score runs; lots of them - but he's not going to motor along at 6 an over.
To be a good ODI team, you need an accumulator. Someone who will keep his end all the way along which gives more security for the carnage at the other end. We saw in the second ODI that the wickets in hand were key as Sri Lanka were able to accelerate in the batting powerplay and end up getting 40 more runs than they would have had wickets fallen regularly. Master anchors like Trott (note I said "anchor", not something else), like Jayawardene the other day don't have to score at a run a ball, but given time, they will convert starts into big scores without throwing it away.
Trott got a lot of unfair stick during the World Cup for playing that anchor role. It's a fairly crucial position in the team, and someone has to fulfill it, especially when wickets are tumbling down the other end. Trott stood up, and was arguably England's man of the tournament (although don't tell Bob Willis). However, since the World Cup, things have changed.
Alastair Cook, so often Trott's test partner-in-crime, has been implanted into the team and named captain. The pair's stoic partnerships over the past 8 months in test cricket is a mastery of solidly accumulating without taking risks. The two are a big part of England's recent test success, as they grind teams down before the carnage of Pietersen, Bell, Morgan and Prior come later on. But the tactic of dobbing along at two an over without playing any shots in ODI cricket just won't work.
With Cook opening and Trott coming in at three, it only takes Kieswetter to fall first for the two to be united. And if the pair play their natural games, it doesn't take long for the runs to dry up and England be immediately behind the 8-ball. Which is an unsustainable plan. The other option is for one of them to be the aggressor, which as Trott proved when caught playing a rather ungainly lofted drive, they just don't have the game to do.
As I said earlier - I like Jonathan Trott. I supported his place in the team through the World Cup, but now things are different. Alastair Cook has come in as captain and moved the goalposts, and as harsh as England's selectors can be even they wouldn't ditch their new captain after only three games. And this batting line-up just can't accomodate the both of them. So sadly, as much as it pains me, I'd move Eoin Morgan to three (a player who can move effortlessly through the gears and is as good as 200/1 after 15 as he is at 0/4 after 0.4) and ship Trott out. England need to act fast before they get left ever further behind.
To be a good ODI team, you need an accumulator. Someone who will keep his end all the way along which gives more security for the carnage at the other end. We saw in the second ODI that the wickets in hand were key as Sri Lanka were able to accelerate in the batting powerplay and end up getting 40 more runs than they would have had wickets fallen regularly. Master anchors like Trott (note I said "anchor", not something else), like Jayawardene the other day don't have to score at a run a ball, but given time, they will convert starts into big scores without throwing it away.
Trott got a lot of unfair stick during the World Cup for playing that anchor role. It's a fairly crucial position in the team, and someone has to fulfill it, especially when wickets are tumbling down the other end. Trott stood up, and was arguably England's man of the tournament (although don't tell Bob Willis). However, since the World Cup, things have changed.
Alastair Cook, so often Trott's test partner-in-crime, has been implanted into the team and named captain. The pair's stoic partnerships over the past 8 months in test cricket is a mastery of solidly accumulating without taking risks. The two are a big part of England's recent test success, as they grind teams down before the carnage of Pietersen, Bell, Morgan and Prior come later on. But the tactic of dobbing along at two an over without playing any shots in ODI cricket just won't work.
With Cook opening and Trott coming in at three, it only takes Kieswetter to fall first for the two to be united. And if the pair play their natural games, it doesn't take long for the runs to dry up and England be immediately behind the 8-ball. Which is an unsustainable plan. The other option is for one of them to be the aggressor, which as Trott proved when caught playing a rather ungainly lofted drive, they just don't have the game to do.
As I said earlier - I like Jonathan Trott. I supported his place in the team through the World Cup, but now things are different. Alastair Cook has come in as captain and moved the goalposts, and as harsh as England's selectors can be even they wouldn't ditch their new captain after only three games. And this batting line-up just can't accomodate the both of them. So sadly, as much as it pains me, I'd move Eoin Morgan to three (a player who can move effortlessly through the gears and is as good as 200/1 after 15 as he is at 0/4 after 0.4) and ship Trott out. England need to act fast before they get left ever further behind.
Sunday, 12 June 2011
England's New One-Day Direction
This morning England name their first post-World Cup One Day squad. In effect, with the start of a new World Cup cycle starting here, this is an opportunity for a blank canvas in terms of England's limited over cricket, with new players given the chance to prove themselves and old players who couldn't hack it given the boot. This could be a defining squad announcement for England, as the established order swept aside and a new generation welcomed in. This will certainly be the squad with the most new faces until this similiar situation in four years time. I've written about who should or shouldn't be in the limited over squad quite a few times, but seeing as this is a chance to reevaluate England's ODI squad, I've reevaluated who I'd put in there myself.
For me, before picking the squad, there should only be one definite on the list - and that's the captain. While personally I would have liked someone else to have done the job, the selectors have gone for Alastair Cook, so at this moment in time, he's the only name on the board. And seeing as Stuart Broad is going to be T20 captain, he can be in there too. Other than that, past reputations should count for nothing, and the selectors should be ruthless in picking the best One Day players in the country, regardless of past glories (or not).
The first thing to think about is the balance of the team. England had a muddled ODI strategy going into the World Cup that kept chopping and changing - it was evident that they didn't know what their prefered team was. Did they want 6 or 7 out-and-out batsmen? Did they want one, two, three or even four all-rounders? Did they want one spinner, or three? Did they want the wicket-keeper to open? The strategy wasn't so much as wrong but clouded by indecision. So Andy Flower needs to set his stall out and pick a tactic for success. For my team, I've gone for 6 batsmen (of whom one can bowl), a wicket-keeper at seven, and four bowlers. There should be plenty of depth to both the batting and the bowling, and I think it is the most balanced side possible for ODI cricket.
The first name I'm going to pick is my wicket-keeper. England's use of wicket-keepers has been as muddled as anything else, with Prior, Davies and Kieswetter all getting jettisoned in the 12 months leading into the World Cup, before Prior was eventually selected. Personally, it's between Kieswetter and Davies, but I'd rather have Craig Kieswetter in down the order where he can give the final throes of an innings real impetus. While he was found out against the harder new ball in English conditions last summer, Kieswetter is a far better bet when the ball (and the bowlers) are a little more tired, and he can be a great 'finisher' down the order.
Batting wise, Alastair Cook is selected due to his captaincy, and opening alongside him I'd pick Alex Hales. Hales is a big hitter, which would be needed alongside the more sedate Cook, and has had an excellent start to the season. A lot is expected of him, and I think the time is certainly right to get him into the England team in order to improve his nascent game and gain invaluable experience.
While I said past reputations shouldn't come into it, my 3, 4 and 5 are straight from the World Cup. Jonathan Trott, for all of the accusations about a slow scoring rate is an incredible accumulator who can really anchor the innings. And Kevin Pietersen and Eoin Morgan would walk into any One Day team in the world (although judgement still to be passed about KP's mental state).
The last jigsaw piece of my middle order would be Samit Patel - unthinkable not too long ago, but after shedding (some) pounds and seemingly winning favour by getting into the Lions squad, Patel may have earned redemption. Clearly talented enough, the only question mark would be over his fitness, but if he's done enough to suggest to Andy Flower that he's ready then he should be brought in. Good with the ball but better with the bat, Patel is the sort of player that adds real balance to the team and can be England's trump card.
In terms of the bowling, Graeme Swann gets in as he is the best spinner in the country. Stuart Broad also plays because he is the T20 captain, as well as being a very good ODI player. And the other two fast bowling spots I'd give to Jade Dernbach and Chris Woakes. Dernbach has really impressed over the past year, both at Surrey and with the Lions, and has very quickly become a very accomplished one day bowler. And Woakes has already played a few times for England, and is already a very good player who will only continue to increase as he matures.
Perhaps the highest profile absentees are Ian Bell, Matt Prior and Jimmy Anderson. All stalwarts of England sides over the past few years, they've been passed over for various reasons. Prior is a very good attacking batsman, but has a distinctly ordinary ODI record, and should be moved aside to allow someone else a go. Bell is fast becoming one of the best test batsmen in the world, and I would love to have him in any England side (it wasn't that long ago I was campaigning for him to captain the ODI team) but I can't really see a space for him in this team. However, if Pietersen continues declining or Trott is brutally killed by Bob Willis then Bell would be the man to fill the vacant position. And Anderson's ODI form has tailed off significantly, and we saw all too clearly the poor perfomances in the Australian ODIs and the World Cup, which were almost certainly due to overkill and tiredness. A break from cricket after each test series would keep Jimmy fighting fit and fresh and would certainly benefit him in the long run.
England have a real opportunity with the announcements of the limited over sides today to turn over a new leaf and start again with One Day cricket. In the T20 side we might see Jason Roy or Ben Stokes, and there could be some new faces in the 50 over team too. Today's squad is a significant one, as it really sets the course for England's one day direction over the next four years. Let's just hope that the destination is the World Cup.
My ODI team:
Alastair Cook (c)
Alex Hales
Jonathan Trott
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Samit Patel
Craig Kieswetter
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Jade Dernbach
For me, before picking the squad, there should only be one definite on the list - and that's the captain. While personally I would have liked someone else to have done the job, the selectors have gone for Alastair Cook, so at this moment in time, he's the only name on the board. And seeing as Stuart Broad is going to be T20 captain, he can be in there too. Other than that, past reputations should count for nothing, and the selectors should be ruthless in picking the best One Day players in the country, regardless of past glories (or not).
The first thing to think about is the balance of the team. England had a muddled ODI strategy going into the World Cup that kept chopping and changing - it was evident that they didn't know what their prefered team was. Did they want 6 or 7 out-and-out batsmen? Did they want one, two, three or even four all-rounders? Did they want one spinner, or three? Did they want the wicket-keeper to open? The strategy wasn't so much as wrong but clouded by indecision. So Andy Flower needs to set his stall out and pick a tactic for success. For my team, I've gone for 6 batsmen (of whom one can bowl), a wicket-keeper at seven, and four bowlers. There should be plenty of depth to both the batting and the bowling, and I think it is the most balanced side possible for ODI cricket.
The first name I'm going to pick is my wicket-keeper. England's use of wicket-keepers has been as muddled as anything else, with Prior, Davies and Kieswetter all getting jettisoned in the 12 months leading into the World Cup, before Prior was eventually selected. Personally, it's between Kieswetter and Davies, but I'd rather have Craig Kieswetter in down the order where he can give the final throes of an innings real impetus. While he was found out against the harder new ball in English conditions last summer, Kieswetter is a far better bet when the ball (and the bowlers) are a little more tired, and he can be a great 'finisher' down the order.
Batting wise, Alastair Cook is selected due to his captaincy, and opening alongside him I'd pick Alex Hales. Hales is a big hitter, which would be needed alongside the more sedate Cook, and has had an excellent start to the season. A lot is expected of him, and I think the time is certainly right to get him into the England team in order to improve his nascent game and gain invaluable experience.
While I said past reputations shouldn't come into it, my 3, 4 and 5 are straight from the World Cup. Jonathan Trott, for all of the accusations about a slow scoring rate is an incredible accumulator who can really anchor the innings. And Kevin Pietersen and Eoin Morgan would walk into any One Day team in the world (although judgement still to be passed about KP's mental state).
The last jigsaw piece of my middle order would be Samit Patel - unthinkable not too long ago, but after shedding (some) pounds and seemingly winning favour by getting into the Lions squad, Patel may have earned redemption. Clearly talented enough, the only question mark would be over his fitness, but if he's done enough to suggest to Andy Flower that he's ready then he should be brought in. Good with the ball but better with the bat, Patel is the sort of player that adds real balance to the team and can be England's trump card.
In terms of the bowling, Graeme Swann gets in as he is the best spinner in the country. Stuart Broad also plays because he is the T20 captain, as well as being a very good ODI player. And the other two fast bowling spots I'd give to Jade Dernbach and Chris Woakes. Dernbach has really impressed over the past year, both at Surrey and with the Lions, and has very quickly become a very accomplished one day bowler. And Woakes has already played a few times for England, and is already a very good player who will only continue to increase as he matures.
Perhaps the highest profile absentees are Ian Bell, Matt Prior and Jimmy Anderson. All stalwarts of England sides over the past few years, they've been passed over for various reasons. Prior is a very good attacking batsman, but has a distinctly ordinary ODI record, and should be moved aside to allow someone else a go. Bell is fast becoming one of the best test batsmen in the world, and I would love to have him in any England side (it wasn't that long ago I was campaigning for him to captain the ODI team) but I can't really see a space for him in this team. However, if Pietersen continues declining or Trott is brutally killed by Bob Willis then Bell would be the man to fill the vacant position. And Anderson's ODI form has tailed off significantly, and we saw all too clearly the poor perfomances in the Australian ODIs and the World Cup, which were almost certainly due to overkill and tiredness. A break from cricket after each test series would keep Jimmy fighting fit and fresh and would certainly benefit him in the long run.
England have a real opportunity with the announcements of the limited over sides today to turn over a new leaf and start again with One Day cricket. In the T20 side we might see Jason Roy or Ben Stokes, and there could be some new faces in the 50 over team too. Today's squad is a significant one, as it really sets the course for England's one day direction over the next four years. Let's just hope that the destination is the World Cup.
My ODI team:
Alastair Cook (c)
Alex Hales
Jonathan Trott
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Samit Patel
Craig Kieswetter
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Jade Dernbach
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Negative England Scared To Win
Today was a day where England could have won a test match. In an incredibly strong position overnight at 170 odd ahead with only two wickets down, England could have hit out in the morning and given themselves 70 overs to bowl Sri Lanka out. Instead, they nurdled it around in the morning, had an unneccesarily long hit in the afternoon before packing up an hour early because they were bored.
The Andocracy have long spoken of their desire to be world number one, and to create a team that dominates world cricket. Today was not the performance of a team who can dominate anybody. The gameplan was wrong from start to finish, and it appears patently obvious that Strauss much preferred to 'not lose' rather than rolling the dice and actually going for the win. Had you offered Strauss the draw at eleven this morning, he would have taken it. And that's the crux of the matter - would the West Indian team of the 80s have 'settled' for the draw? Or the Aussie team of the 00s?
The batting this morning. Yes, Alastair Cook has been in great form of late, and everybody wants to make a ton at Lord's, but at that pace? In the morning session Cook only added 21 runs to his overnight score, which understandably selfish as it was, shouldn't have been tolerated. Making a hundred at HQ is always going to be a big thing for a player, but as vice-captain and part of the senior management team, Cook should have recognised that nurdling his way to the ton wasn't going to help the ultimate cause of winning the test match for England. While Pietersen was a touch more attacking, it appeared clear that he too was after personal runs rather than a selfless acceleration for the team, which is why England stagnated big time after drinks. Herath turned the screw, and Cook and KP were happy to block it out and slowly push their way towards three figures. This meant that England weren't as far ahead as they should have been at lunch, and were unable to declare at the interval (which may have been in the original plan).
After lunch Bell, Morgan and Prior all swung the blade, but the longer they stayed out there, the less time England had to skittle Sri Lanka. Strauss should have known that a Dilshan-less Sri Lanka would have had no interest in chasing anything, and should have declared the moment Cook brought up his ton. As it was, he stayed on, paralysed by the fear that Sri Lanka would chase down runs at 8 an over and he'd look a fool. If anything, the lack of bravery was far more foolish than a bold declaration at 2 o'clock. And so we watched as time ebbed on, as Cook, Morgan, Prior and even Broad came and went, for not much gain.
The bowlers, I thought, were OK, but Sri Lanka were in full defensive bunker mode. Sri Lanka's full strength plan of playing P Jayawardene at 6 with Maharoof at 7 has left a very long tail, and is very collapsable. With Dilshan unable to bat unless in the direst of emergencies, Sri Lanka were there for the taking. Even though taking seven wickets in 15 overs is unlikely, the decision to shake hands seemed odd when England were only one wicket away from Maharoof, and two away from the bowlers. And if England had learnt anything from Cardiff, it's that the pressure of batting to save the game can do funny things to batsmen. As it was they'd had enough, with Strauss shaking hands and leaving the fans a touch bemused.
I went to Lord's today hoping to see a really attacking display of top test cricket from England as they pushed for a win. Instead, I saw a meek display of going through the motions from a team happy they didn't lose. If England are to be the world's best, they have to grow a pair and have a real go at days like this. We've seen in the past that Strauss can be a very defensive captain who likes to be 100% he can't lose before going for the win. If he really is to lead England to the number one spot, he's going to have to roll the dice every once in a while, in order to win the biggest prize of all.
The Andocracy have long spoken of their desire to be world number one, and to create a team that dominates world cricket. Today was not the performance of a team who can dominate anybody. The gameplan was wrong from start to finish, and it appears patently obvious that Strauss much preferred to 'not lose' rather than rolling the dice and actually going for the win. Had you offered Strauss the draw at eleven this morning, he would have taken it. And that's the crux of the matter - would the West Indian team of the 80s have 'settled' for the draw? Or the Aussie team of the 00s?
The batting this morning. Yes, Alastair Cook has been in great form of late, and everybody wants to make a ton at Lord's, but at that pace? In the morning session Cook only added 21 runs to his overnight score, which understandably selfish as it was, shouldn't have been tolerated. Making a hundred at HQ is always going to be a big thing for a player, but as vice-captain and part of the senior management team, Cook should have recognised that nurdling his way to the ton wasn't going to help the ultimate cause of winning the test match for England. While Pietersen was a touch more attacking, it appeared clear that he too was after personal runs rather than a selfless acceleration for the team, which is why England stagnated big time after drinks. Herath turned the screw, and Cook and KP were happy to block it out and slowly push their way towards three figures. This meant that England weren't as far ahead as they should have been at lunch, and were unable to declare at the interval (which may have been in the original plan).
After lunch Bell, Morgan and Prior all swung the blade, but the longer they stayed out there, the less time England had to skittle Sri Lanka. Strauss should have known that a Dilshan-less Sri Lanka would have had no interest in chasing anything, and should have declared the moment Cook brought up his ton. As it was, he stayed on, paralysed by the fear that Sri Lanka would chase down runs at 8 an over and he'd look a fool. If anything, the lack of bravery was far more foolish than a bold declaration at 2 o'clock. And so we watched as time ebbed on, as Cook, Morgan, Prior and even Broad came and went, for not much gain.
The bowlers, I thought, were OK, but Sri Lanka were in full defensive bunker mode. Sri Lanka's full strength plan of playing P Jayawardene at 6 with Maharoof at 7 has left a very long tail, and is very collapsable. With Dilshan unable to bat unless in the direst of emergencies, Sri Lanka were there for the taking. Even though taking seven wickets in 15 overs is unlikely, the decision to shake hands seemed odd when England were only one wicket away from Maharoof, and two away from the bowlers. And if England had learnt anything from Cardiff, it's that the pressure of batting to save the game can do funny things to batsmen. As it was they'd had enough, with Strauss shaking hands and leaving the fans a touch bemused.
I went to Lord's today hoping to see a really attacking display of top test cricket from England as they pushed for a win. Instead, I saw a meek display of going through the motions from a team happy they didn't lose. If England are to be the world's best, they have to grow a pair and have a real go at days like this. We've seen in the past that Strauss can be a very defensive captain who likes to be 100% he can't lose before going for the win. If he really is to lead England to the number one spot, he's going to have to roll the dice every once in a while, in order to win the biggest prize of all.
Day Five at Lord's
Before play started...: England two down and a few ahead - could declare to set up an interesting finish.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Not really anywhere. They were happy to play for the draw, and they got it.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Restricted the big runs in the morning meaning they had a shorter time to survive, which they did very comfortably.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Played incredibly negatively - delayed the declaration for far too long and shook hands when they were only one wicket away from the tail and a potential collapse. Poor.
Where did it all go right for England?: Another hundred for Cook, runs for KP, and some nice hits by Bell. Plus Trott proved he's a useful enough bowler to turn to as and when required.
Who won each session?: Morning - Just about England (but scored too slowly). Afternoon - Probably even. Evening - Nobody cared.
Who should have won the game?: England. Didn't play well enough today, and let the win slip away. But it would have been interesting had Dilshan and Jayawardene been able to stay on in the evening session on Day 3, as with tired ineffective bowlers, England could have conceded a fairly sizable first innings lead and it could have been a different story...
Shot of the day: Bell's guide down to third man. He was in awesome form. He even prompted me to declare him my favourite ever player (I later downgraded this to my favourite batsman to watch in the current England team. I was caught up in the emotion of the situation).
Ball of the day: "Rangana Herath's Ball of The Century" to KP. Probably the best ball he'll ever bowl - pitching well outside leg, and turning to hit the top of off-stump. Whatever's said about KP's troubles with SLA, I defy anyone to play that ball.
Man of the day: I don't know. Bell? The only England batsman to really understand the situation and bat accordingly.
Mug(s) of the day: Strauss's poor captaincy (I'll discuss that in a blog later) is saved by Matt Prior breaking a window. As such, the mug of the day is whoever put out the press releases; the first claiming that a glove bounced off a kit bag and onto a row of bats which smashed the window, and the second was that he tried to balance a bat on the windowsill, but he misbalanced it and shattered the window. Most likely, he just put his fist through it. Pretty much sums up England's day.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Not really anywhere. They were happy to play for the draw, and they got it.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Restricted the big runs in the morning meaning they had a shorter time to survive, which they did very comfortably.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Played incredibly negatively - delayed the declaration for far too long and shook hands when they were only one wicket away from the tail and a potential collapse. Poor.
Where did it all go right for England?: Another hundred for Cook, runs for KP, and some nice hits by Bell. Plus Trott proved he's a useful enough bowler to turn to as and when required.
Who won each session?: Morning - Just about England (but scored too slowly). Afternoon - Probably even. Evening - Nobody cared.
Who should have won the game?: England. Didn't play well enough today, and let the win slip away. But it would have been interesting had Dilshan and Jayawardene been able to stay on in the evening session on Day 3, as with tired ineffective bowlers, England could have conceded a fairly sizable first innings lead and it could have been a different story...
Shot of the day: Bell's guide down to third man. He was in awesome form. He even prompted me to declare him my favourite ever player (I later downgraded this to my favourite batsman to watch in the current England team. I was caught up in the emotion of the situation).
Ball of the day: "Rangana Herath's Ball of The Century" to KP. Probably the best ball he'll ever bowl - pitching well outside leg, and turning to hit the top of off-stump. Whatever's said about KP's troubles with SLA, I defy anyone to play that ball.
Man of the day: I don't know. Bell? The only England batsman to really understand the situation and bat accordingly.
Mug(s) of the day: Strauss's poor captaincy (I'll discuss that in a blog later) is saved by Matt Prior breaking a window. As such, the mug of the day is whoever put out the press releases; the first claiming that a glove bounced off a kit bag and onto a row of bats which smashed the window, and the second was that he tried to balance a bat on the windowsill, but he misbalanced it and shattered the window. Most likely, he just put his fist through it. Pretty much sums up England's day.
Why Kevin Pietersen Needs A Century
Kevin Pietersen is a man bereft of confidence. There's no doubt that all being equal that he is by far England's most talented batsman, but in the last few years his scores have massively tailed off. With an apparent weakness to left-arm spin and an even more apparent lack of zest for the game, KP has gone from a world beating first choice to a runless liability.
It's difficult to precisely pinpoint exactly when KP lost his mojo. However, 2008 was the year for KP. It was the year of the switch hit and the ascent to the captaincy. Pietersen had never felt more loved by the English cricketing public; something confirmed when he was chosen to replace Michael Vaughan as the skipper. And his form reflected it. 2008 was the last calendar year that Pietersen averaged over 50 in tests, and he was at the peak of his talents. The world was at his feet.
As we know, the rest was history. The Night of the Long Knives which saw Pietersen and Moores lose their positions also saw KP lose that aura of invincibility. Gone was the brash cock of the walk, and with that slight loss of confidence came the dip in form. Yes, he made a ton on the first tour post-captaincy in the West Indies, but it wasn't the ton of the KP of old. The notorious Achilles injury meant the English summer was written off, and he never really recaptured the form that made him the superstar of his earlier career. An inability to score runs on his return in South Africa manifested itself into a real problem, and Pietersen failed to score a test century for 20 months after that solitary one in the West Indies. The media hyped problem against left-arm spin grew into a real mental block, and combined with poor scores, Pietersen cut a forlorn figure. He may have made a double century at Adelaide during the Ashes to ward off the vulture, but they've returned once more. Once an automatic pick, Pietersen's neck is on the chopping block, as he just isn't justifying his place in the team.
For my mind, there's still no question about KP's ability. The only issues with his batting are all in his mind. Does he still have the desire and hunger to play for England? Does he still believe he's good enough? The skunk-haired cocksure of 2005 who would try to smash Shane Warne over the Lord's pavilion is long gone, and in his place is a man filled with worry and doubt. KP needs runs tomorrow, and he needs a lot of them. There's no doubt that techically he is good enough, but if he lacks the self-belief and confidence that he can make runs, then quite simply he won't. And in this fairly ruthless England regime, if a player isn't making runs, he won't be in the team. I don't know if this is actually KP's 'last chance', but he probably thinks it is. If he's able to grind out a century that helps fire England to victory, the confidence will start flowing and the runs will start flooding in again. If not, or if not at the Rose Bowl next week, then we could be seeing the end of one of the most talented cricketers of the generation.
For KP's sake, for England's sake, he needs this.
It's difficult to precisely pinpoint exactly when KP lost his mojo. However, 2008 was the year for KP. It was the year of the switch hit and the ascent to the captaincy. Pietersen had never felt more loved by the English cricketing public; something confirmed when he was chosen to replace Michael Vaughan as the skipper. And his form reflected it. 2008 was the last calendar year that Pietersen averaged over 50 in tests, and he was at the peak of his talents. The world was at his feet.
As we know, the rest was history. The Night of the Long Knives which saw Pietersen and Moores lose their positions also saw KP lose that aura of invincibility. Gone was the brash cock of the walk, and with that slight loss of confidence came the dip in form. Yes, he made a ton on the first tour post-captaincy in the West Indies, but it wasn't the ton of the KP of old. The notorious Achilles injury meant the English summer was written off, and he never really recaptured the form that made him the superstar of his earlier career. An inability to score runs on his return in South Africa manifested itself into a real problem, and Pietersen failed to score a test century for 20 months after that solitary one in the West Indies. The media hyped problem against left-arm spin grew into a real mental block, and combined with poor scores, Pietersen cut a forlorn figure. He may have made a double century at Adelaide during the Ashes to ward off the vulture, but they've returned once more. Once an automatic pick, Pietersen's neck is on the chopping block, as he just isn't justifying his place in the team.
For my mind, there's still no question about KP's ability. The only issues with his batting are all in his mind. Does he still have the desire and hunger to play for England? Does he still believe he's good enough? The skunk-haired cocksure of 2005 who would try to smash Shane Warne over the Lord's pavilion is long gone, and in his place is a man filled with worry and doubt. KP needs runs tomorrow, and he needs a lot of them. There's no doubt that techically he is good enough, but if he lacks the self-belief and confidence that he can make runs, then quite simply he won't. And in this fairly ruthless England regime, if a player isn't making runs, he won't be in the team. I don't know if this is actually KP's 'last chance', but he probably thinks it is. If he's able to grind out a century that helps fire England to victory, the confidence will start flowing and the runs will start flooding in again. If not, or if not at the Rose Bowl next week, then we could be seeing the end of one of the most talented cricketers of the generation.
For KP's sake, for England's sake, he needs this.
Friday, 3 June 2011
Day One At Lord's
Before play started...: Four days of rain were followed by two hours of madness as England stole it at Cardiff.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Didn't press home the advantage after an excellent first hour.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Got Trott out cheaply, proving it is humanly possible. Further seeds of doubt sewn in KP's mind too.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: If I was nit-picking it would be that nobody made a hundred (carried on to make a daddy). Poor start too wasn't great.
Where did it all go right for England?: A lot of strength down the order - didn't panic when wickets fell. Ended the day in the ascendancy.
Who won each session?: Morning - Sri Lanka. Afternoon - England. Evening - Just about England.
Who's winning the game?: In that England are on 342-6 after being sent in, England.
Shot of the day: Morgan smashing Herath into the pavilion for 6. He was only on about 5 at the time.
Ball of the day: Lakmal bowled an absolute jaffa to Bell when he was new at the crease - big swing and somehow beat the edge.
Man of the day: Alastair Cook - missed out on another hundred but an important innings in the context of the match.
Mug of the day: KP. How much longer can past glories justify his test position?
Short Midwicket Name Drops of the Day: Had drinks with former Middlesex wicketkeeper David Nash. Saw Richie Benaud from across the Coronation Garden. Somebody gave me a package addressed to Jimmy Anderson thinking I was him. Saw Alastair Cook shirtless about to have a shower through an open window. (As soon as Cook saw me, he closed the window).
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Didn't press home the advantage after an excellent first hour.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Got Trott out cheaply, proving it is humanly possible. Further seeds of doubt sewn in KP's mind too.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: If I was nit-picking it would be that nobody made a hundred (carried on to make a daddy). Poor start too wasn't great.
Where did it all go right for England?: A lot of strength down the order - didn't panic when wickets fell. Ended the day in the ascendancy.
Who won each session?: Morning - Sri Lanka. Afternoon - England. Evening - Just about England.
Who's winning the game?: In that England are on 342-6 after being sent in, England.
Shot of the day: Morgan smashing Herath into the pavilion for 6. He was only on about 5 at the time.
Ball of the day: Lakmal bowled an absolute jaffa to Bell when he was new at the crease - big swing and somehow beat the edge.
Man of the day: Alastair Cook - missed out on another hundred but an important innings in the context of the match.
Mug of the day: KP. How much longer can past glories justify his test position?
Short Midwicket Name Drops of the Day: Had drinks with former Middlesex wicketkeeper David Nash. Saw Richie Benaud from across the Coronation Garden. Somebody gave me a package addressed to Jimmy Anderson thinking I was him. Saw Alastair Cook shirtless about to have a shower through an open window. (As soon as Cook saw me, he closed the window).
Sunday, 29 May 2011
Day Four at Cardiff
Before play started...: A lot of rain. An inevitable draw. Hundreds for Cook and Trott after Sri Lanka made 400.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Their attack still looked toothless
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: They got KP out cheaply to a left-arm spinner, meaning the Pietersen vicious cycle of left-arm spin will guarantee Herath Pietersen's wicket every innings for the rest of the series.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: They're not far enough ahead to make this game interesting.
Where did it all go right for England?: Trott's double ton. Bell's near-as-dammit ton. A handy lead. They can't lose from here.
Who won each session?: Afternoon and evening - England.
Who's winning the game?: If it was a timeless test, England would win. As it is, it has to finish tomorrow, and with more rain about, the draw is 99.999999999999999% likely.
Shot of the day: Bell lobbing Herath over his head for aDLF Maximum six.
Ball of the day: Herath bowled a corker to Trott that turned miles. But Trott still blocked it.
Man of the day: Jonny Trott.
Mug of the day: KP, mainly for fuelling the poison pens by getting out to yet another left-arm spinner.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Their attack still looked toothless
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: They got KP out cheaply to a left-arm spinner, meaning the Pietersen vicious cycle of left-arm spin will guarantee Herath Pietersen's wicket every innings for the rest of the series.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: They're not far enough ahead to make this game interesting.
Where did it all go right for England?: Trott's double ton. Bell's near-as-dammit ton. A handy lead. They can't lose from here.
Who won each session?: Afternoon and evening - England.
Who's winning the game?: If it was a timeless test, England would win. As it is, it has to finish tomorrow, and with more rain about, the draw is 99.999999999999999% likely.
Shot of the day: Bell lobbing Herath over his head for a
Ball of the day: Herath bowled a corker to Trott that turned miles. But Trott still blocked it.
Man of the day: Jonny Trott.
Mug of the day: KP, mainly for fuelling the poison pens by getting out to yet another left-arm spinner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)