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.
Showing posts with label Sri Lanka in England '11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sri Lanka in England '11. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
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.
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, 10 July 2011
Kiesy Keeping His Confidence Up
I've deliberately not written anything about Middlesex's T20 campaign on here this year, partly because we've been so awful and we've been trying to keep it on the down low, and also because I've been writing exclusively (and officially) about it here. However, this piece is going to reference it slightly, so be warned.
Today at Southgate, Middlesex took on Somerset. Turning out for Somerset was Craig Kieswetter. Having played a big part in winning the ODI series against Sri Lanka for England yesterday at Old Trafford, Craig hopped in the Kiesmobile (that picture there)
and got down to the picturesque outground for the T20.
I've seen Craig keep wicket on a few occasions, and the jury's often been out. Picked for England purely on the basis of him being a big hitting opener rather than for any fancy glovework, I'd always felt Kieswetter's keeping wasn't quite up to standard. And he probably felt it too. You can always tell immediately when a wicket-keeper is actually any good, because he exudes a confidence that radiates around the field. You just know that if the ball goes up, it's going to land safely in his gloves. If the batsman strays even momentarily from his ground, you know the keeper will have whipped off the bails before he regains his safety. At the level Kieswetter is playing, anyone given the gloves will be good enough, but every now and again you come across someone with that little something special.
My first sighting of Craig Kieswetter keeping wicket was last summer in an ODI against Australia. The highs of the World T20 were long forgotten as Craig's struggles at the top of the order in English conditions had taken hold, and the press were targetting him. He hadn't scored many all series, and the spectre of Steve Davies loomed large. And as such, while his keeping wasn't terrible, he clearly didn't command the field. A couple of spills were soon followed by a couple of drops, and suddenly he looked very miserable. His poor batting continued, and he was not long later dropped for Davies and forgotten.
Fast forward to today's T20. Kieswetter's keeping had been impressive through the ODI series against Sri Lanka - the first time he'd been in the side since being dropped 12 months ago. But at Southgate, everything went through him. Whatever was happening in the field, everyone was looking at him. While it wasn't a faultless display he exuded a confidence that suggested he wasn't going to spill any chances or muff up any run outs. And he took a couple of excellent catches which ultimately swung the momentum back towards his side. He didn't score many runs but he still seemed the main attraction.
It just goes to show what a bit of confidence can do. Doing well in one of his disciplines has given a boost to the other, and as such is in fine form. Being told by Andy Flower that he is to be the first choice ODI keeper gave Kieswetter the freedom and confidence to excel in the ODI series, and the high score has given him far more confidence in the field. Which will then rub off on his batting. Which will then give him more of an aura whilst keeping. It's a continuous cycle of self-belief that can only benefit Craig and England going forward.
The difference between Kieswetter against Australia last year and Sri Lanka this is huge. Last year he struggled immensely against the moving ball and the requirements of a 50 over opener compared to a twenty20 one. This year (albeit against a weaker Sri Lankan attack) he's looked composed, assured, and has scored a weight of runs that suggests he's going to be around for a long time. This may have started as a post about Middlesex's hard-earned point (from a tie, nonetheless) against Somerset, but it's mostly been about Craig Kieswetter. Something that England's ODI cricket might be all about for quite a while to come...
Today at Southgate, Middlesex took on Somerset. Turning out for Somerset was Craig Kieswetter. Having played a big part in winning the ODI series against Sri Lanka for England yesterday at Old Trafford, Craig hopped in the Kiesmobile (that picture there)
and got down to the picturesque outground for the T20.
I've seen Craig keep wicket on a few occasions, and the jury's often been out. Picked for England purely on the basis of him being a big hitting opener rather than for any fancy glovework, I'd always felt Kieswetter's keeping wasn't quite up to standard. And he probably felt it too. You can always tell immediately when a wicket-keeper is actually any good, because he exudes a confidence that radiates around the field. You just know that if the ball goes up, it's going to land safely in his gloves. If the batsman strays even momentarily from his ground, you know the keeper will have whipped off the bails before he regains his safety. At the level Kieswetter is playing, anyone given the gloves will be good enough, but every now and again you come across someone with that little something special.
My first sighting of Craig Kieswetter keeping wicket was last summer in an ODI against Australia. The highs of the World T20 were long forgotten as Craig's struggles at the top of the order in English conditions had taken hold, and the press were targetting him. He hadn't scored many all series, and the spectre of Steve Davies loomed large. And as such, while his keeping wasn't terrible, he clearly didn't command the field. A couple of spills were soon followed by a couple of drops, and suddenly he looked very miserable. His poor batting continued, and he was not long later dropped for Davies and forgotten.
Fast forward to today's T20. Kieswetter's keeping had been impressive through the ODI series against Sri Lanka - the first time he'd been in the side since being dropped 12 months ago. But at Southgate, everything went through him. Whatever was happening in the field, everyone was looking at him. While it wasn't a faultless display he exuded a confidence that suggested he wasn't going to spill any chances or muff up any run outs. And he took a couple of excellent catches which ultimately swung the momentum back towards his side. He didn't score many runs but he still seemed the main attraction.
It just goes to show what a bit of confidence can do. Doing well in one of his disciplines has given a boost to the other, and as such is in fine form. Being told by Andy Flower that he is to be the first choice ODI keeper gave Kieswetter the freedom and confidence to excel in the ODI series, and the high score has given him far more confidence in the field. Which will then rub off on his batting. Which will then give him more of an aura whilst keeping. It's a continuous cycle of self-belief that can only benefit Craig and England going forward.
The difference between Kieswetter against Australia last year and Sri Lanka this is huge. Last year he struggled immensely against the moving ball and the requirements of a 50 over opener compared to a twenty20 one. This year (albeit against a weaker Sri Lankan attack) he's looked composed, assured, and has scored a weight of runs that suggests he's going to be around for a long time. This may have started as a post about Middlesex's hard-earned point (from a tie, nonetheless) against Somerset, but it's mostly been about Craig Kieswetter. Something that England's ODI cricket might be all about for quite a while to come...
Just How Good Actually Are England At ODIs?
England have won the best-of-five series against World Cup finalists Sri Lanka 3-2. In two of the games they were awful. And in three of them they were brilliant. What does this tell us about how good England are? Haven't a clue.
England's ODI form over the past 18 months has actually been pretty decent. A great win out in South Africa. Wins against Bangladesh home and away, followed by another series victory against a strong Pakistani outfit. So had England turned a corner from the 20 odd years of ODI mediocrity? Well, not according to a 6-1 drubbing in Australia and a poor World Cup. But there are the excuses of a tired team fatigued after a heavy winter plagued by big injuries to key players. And as bad as we were in the defeats to Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, England were immense in wins against South Africa and the West Indies (and in the tie against India), which counter-balance out the dross. So we're no closer to actually working out if we're any good.
Everyone sort of knew that England weren't that good at the World Cup, and that changes needed to be made. But cosmetic changes of Cook and Kieswetter in for Strauss and Prior aside, there isn't anything that glaringly obvious wrong about this England ODI side (now that Luke Wright has been cast into the international hinterland). Were we a decent team who were doing things right but just had a poor World Cup. Or not?
And then we have just had the Sri Lanka series. In the first game, England were great. In games two and three, they were horrible. And then everything was right with the world as they won the final two to clinch the series. So are England actually good at ODIs?
Well, yes. And at the same time, no. England are just so inconsistent that it's nigh on impossible to sum up their limited over performances in one neat sentence. Nobody knows what side will turn up. Will it be the lifeless side of leaky bowlers and plodding batsmen who are barely competitve, or a side of world-beating nerve-holding six-hitting wicket-taking flying-catching renegades who blitz the opposition and have won the game in an hour? Consistency, and the persuit of it, is surely what the Flower-Cook combo will be striving for in ODI cricket over the next few years, yet it is what has remained the most elusive element of English limited over recent history.
Can England go on and win in their next ODI series against World Champions India? Absolutely. But at the same time, they could get absolutely humped. So in answer to my early question, just how good are England at ODIs? Because I haven't got a bloody clue...
England's ODI form over the past 18 months has actually been pretty decent. A great win out in South Africa. Wins against Bangladesh home and away, followed by another series victory against a strong Pakistani outfit. So had England turned a corner from the 20 odd years of ODI mediocrity? Well, not according to a 6-1 drubbing in Australia and a poor World Cup. But there are the excuses of a tired team fatigued after a heavy winter plagued by big injuries to key players. And as bad as we were in the defeats to Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, England were immense in wins against South Africa and the West Indies (and in the tie against India), which counter-balance out the dross. So we're no closer to actually working out if we're any good.
Everyone sort of knew that England weren't that good at the World Cup, and that changes needed to be made. But cosmetic changes of Cook and Kieswetter in for Strauss and Prior aside, there isn't anything that glaringly obvious wrong about this England ODI side (now that Luke Wright has been cast into the international hinterland). Were we a decent team who were doing things right but just had a poor World Cup. Or not?
And then we have just had the Sri Lanka series. In the first game, England were great. In games two and three, they were horrible. And then everything was right with the world as they won the final two to clinch the series. So are England actually good at ODIs?
Well, yes. And at the same time, no. England are just so inconsistent that it's nigh on impossible to sum up their limited over performances in one neat sentence. Nobody knows what side will turn up. Will it be the lifeless side of leaky bowlers and plodding batsmen who are barely competitve, or a side of world-beating nerve-holding six-hitting wicket-taking flying-catching renegades who blitz the opposition and have won the game in an hour? Consistency, and the persuit of it, is surely what the Flower-Cook combo will be striving for in ODI cricket over the next few years, yet it is what has remained the most elusive element of English limited over recent history.
Can England go on and win in their next ODI series against World Champions India? Absolutely. But at the same time, they could get absolutely humped. So in answer to my early question, just how good are England at ODIs? Because I haven't got a bloody clue...
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.
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Dernbach's Dilemma
Jade Dernbach was picked for this limited over series against Sri Lanka after coming on leaps and bounds for Surrey over the past couple of years. A skiddy-ish swing bowler who can move it either way, much of Jade's trumpeting has been due to his slower ball. Coming from the back of the hand, it reduces Jade's regular high 80's to a deceptive low 60 mph, and has been a big part of getting him a lot of county wickets over the past couple of years, which has been instrumental in his rise to the full England squad.
But.
But Dernbach is using it far too often. It's clear he knows just what a good slower ball he has, and is deploying it far more readily than he should. Whether it's a question of him not having the experience to know exactly when it should come or whether it's him showing the selectors that he has a good slower ball is beside the point. In his first six international balls he bowled three slower balls, and has been going at that sort of rate ever since. The Sri Lankan batsmen, knowing a slower ball is likely almost every ball, are hanging back in their creases and waiting for it - massively negating any effect that the slower ball could have.
It's been long complained that England don't have enough One Day variation, and Jade's slower ball can be exactly that. However, it will only be effective if used properly. An "X Factor" ball should not be the stock ball - it should be used as a surprise tactic. Batsmen should always have the possibility of a slower ball in the back of their minds, but it should only be used when they've been lulled into a false sense of security after being worn down by 'regular' bowling. At the moment, the Sri Lankan batsmen are readying themselves each ball expecting it to be slower, which means that when it inevitably comes every couple of balls, the main bonus of a 'surprise ball' of it being a suprise is lost. Hence Jade not being hugely effective so far in his three international outings.
Jade's slower ball can in time become lethal. But first he should look over to the other dressing room to see how an "X Factor" ball is deployed properly. Malinga's yorkers are world reknowned as the best in the business, and is pretty much a wicket taking ball every time (just like Steven Crook's). But Malinga's effectiveness is enhanced because he doesn't use the yorker every ball (only towards the end of the innings does he revert to the toe-crushers). Batsmen know the ball could come at any time, but unable to confidently predict it, they over-compensate and end up working themselves into a lot of bother. Part of the reason Malinga is so successful is because batsmen ready themselves for a yorker that doesn't come, and are unable to adjust for anything different.
Jade Dernbach is only new to international cricket, and can become an important part of England's ODI attack. However, he first needs to realise that the shock ball isn't much of a shock when he bowls it more often than his stock ball.
But.
But Dernbach is using it far too often. It's clear he knows just what a good slower ball he has, and is deploying it far more readily than he should. Whether it's a question of him not having the experience to know exactly when it should come or whether it's him showing the selectors that he has a good slower ball is beside the point. In his first six international balls he bowled three slower balls, and has been going at that sort of rate ever since. The Sri Lankan batsmen, knowing a slower ball is likely almost every ball, are hanging back in their creases and waiting for it - massively negating any effect that the slower ball could have.
It's been long complained that England don't have enough One Day variation, and Jade's slower ball can be exactly that. However, it will only be effective if used properly. An "X Factor" ball should not be the stock ball - it should be used as a surprise tactic. Batsmen should always have the possibility of a slower ball in the back of their minds, but it should only be used when they've been lulled into a false sense of security after being worn down by 'regular' bowling. At the moment, the Sri Lankan batsmen are readying themselves each ball expecting it to be slower, which means that when it inevitably comes every couple of balls, the main bonus of a 'surprise ball' of it being a suprise is lost. Hence Jade not being hugely effective so far in his three international outings.
Jade's slower ball can in time become lethal. But first he should look over to the other dressing room to see how an "X Factor" ball is deployed properly. Malinga's yorkers are world reknowned as the best in the business, and is pretty much a wicket taking ball every time (just like Steven Crook's). But Malinga's effectiveness is enhanced because he doesn't use the yorker every ball (only towards the end of the innings does he revert to the toe-crushers). Batsmen know the ball could come at any time, but unable to confidently predict it, they over-compensate and end up working themselves into a lot of bother. Part of the reason Malinga is so successful is because batsmen ready themselves for a yorker that doesn't come, and are unable to adjust for anything different.
Jade Dernbach is only new to international cricket, and can become an important part of England's ODI attack. However, he first needs to realise that the shock ball isn't much of a shock when he bowls it more often than his stock ball.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
England's Twenty20 Identity
Amongst all of the doom and gloom surrounding England's One Day side, it's easy to forget that England are actually not that bad at T20s. Apparently we're World Champions, and World Record holders for the most consecutive wins. So we must be doing something right.
However, since our last T20 game, it's all change. Captain and mainstay of the side Paul Collingwood is no more, and has been replaced at the top by Stuart Broad. We're entering a brave new world of English T20 cricket, but we shouldn't forget what got us to this point in the first place.
England went into the World T20 with a clear plan of attack, with five bowlers who knew they'd bowl 4 overs each, two explosive openers given the licence to blaze away, and a middle order set in stone. As has been repeated an infinite amount of times since, England played an "in your face" aggressive style of cricket; were big-hitters with the bat, clever with the ball, and hawkish in the field.
For this T20 game today at Bristol, Sidebottom, Yardy, Bresnan and Collingwood miss out from the mainstays of the World T20 victories, for a variety of different reasons. However, it's important that while personnel may have changed, the way England play doesn't. England have developed a winning formula for T20 cricket, and while players may come and go, it's important that the brand of play doesn't. Dernbach will come in for Sidebottom, Patel in for Yardy, Woakes in for Bresnan and Bell in for Collingwood.
Today under Stuart Broad, England start a new era of T20 cricket. However, it's vital that it is a case of evolution, not revolution.
However, since our last T20 game, it's all change. Captain and mainstay of the side Paul Collingwood is no more, and has been replaced at the top by Stuart Broad. We're entering a brave new world of English T20 cricket, but we shouldn't forget what got us to this point in the first place.
England went into the World T20 with a clear plan of attack, with five bowlers who knew they'd bowl 4 overs each, two explosive openers given the licence to blaze away, and a middle order set in stone. As has been repeated an infinite amount of times since, England played an "in your face" aggressive style of cricket; were big-hitters with the bat, clever with the ball, and hawkish in the field.
For this T20 game today at Bristol, Sidebottom, Yardy, Bresnan and Collingwood miss out from the mainstays of the World T20 victories, for a variety of different reasons. However, it's important that while personnel may have changed, the way England play doesn't. England have developed a winning formula for T20 cricket, and while players may come and go, it's important that the brand of play doesn't. Dernbach will come in for Sidebottom, Patel in for Yardy, Woakes in for Bresnan and Bell in for Collingwood.
Today under Stuart Broad, England start a new era of T20 cricket. However, it's vital that it is a case of evolution, not revolution.
Monday, 20 June 2011
Sending Strauss To Somerset is Silly
Andrew Strauss didn't score many runs during the Sri Lanka test series. In fact, he took more catches than the runs that he averaged, which is never a good thing. In an attempt to play him into a bit of form, Strauss has been told to pack his bags and get down to Taunton, to turn out for Somerset in their tour match against India.
On the face of it, it seems fairly shrewd. Strauss has the opportunity to fill his boots on the most notoriously batter friendly pitch in the country, and score a few mental points against India. He has the chance to get himself back where he wants to be mentally, and to assert his status as England captain, opener and talisman.
But in reality, it's all quite unnecessary. Cast your minds back a few weeks. Strauss was playing in a match, on batting friendly conditions, against the touring side who he would face in the test series. On that occasion, Strauss was playing for Middlesex against Sri Lanka at Uxbridge, and he was in fine fettle, barnstorming his way to 150. That's a Sri Lankan side that included the "arch nemesis" Chanaka Welegedara, who was getting him out for fun in the tests. Later that week, Strauss went on to Lord's with Middlesex, and made an equally as impressive hundred against Glamorgan. That was two hundreds in two games, and to all he appeared to be in sparkling form and ready to take on the world.
Of course, what transpired was that when it came down to it he struggled for runs, and didn't look all too great while doing so. Scores of 20, 4, 0 and 3 in his four knocks, at an average of 6.75. Sparkling it was not. So why was his triumphant run of form halted so suddenly in the test matches?
Well, quite simply, what came before the tests had no relevance to what happened throughout the series. In two games Strauss batted well, and then in three other games he didn't. This doesn't make him a bad player. This doesn't mean his place is under threat. This doesn't make him such a worry that he has to be shipped out on loan to Somerset so he can try and score runs against the Indian attack. We saw that his runs against Sri Lanka at Uxbridge meant very little in the actual nitty gritty. If he gets a duck at Taunton it doesn't mean he won't score a century in the first test. It all smacks of unnecessary panic from the powers that be because everyone is in form except the undroppable captain, and he needs to get himself into form quick.
Instead of being fitted up for his Somerset club blazer, Strauss should be sitting with his feet up while the rest of the boys play in the ODIs, or even better, playing in the T20s for Middlesex. If Strauss needs one thing at the moment, it's to feel bat on ball, which is exactly what he'd do if he were to play in the T20s (even though he's effectively retired from all limited over cricket). What he doesn't need is the spotlight to follow him to Somerset and to be singled out as a "problem player". Whether Strauss makes runs or not for Somerset is irrelevant. As he knows best, it's what happens during the test matches that matter, which makes the decision to send him to Taunton very silly indeed.
On the face of it, it seems fairly shrewd. Strauss has the opportunity to fill his boots on the most notoriously batter friendly pitch in the country, and score a few mental points against India. He has the chance to get himself back where he wants to be mentally, and to assert his status as England captain, opener and talisman.
But in reality, it's all quite unnecessary. Cast your minds back a few weeks. Strauss was playing in a match, on batting friendly conditions, against the touring side who he would face in the test series. On that occasion, Strauss was playing for Middlesex against Sri Lanka at Uxbridge, and he was in fine fettle, barnstorming his way to 150. That's a Sri Lankan side that included the "arch nemesis" Chanaka Welegedara, who was getting him out for fun in the tests. Later that week, Strauss went on to Lord's with Middlesex, and made an equally as impressive hundred against Glamorgan. That was two hundreds in two games, and to all he appeared to be in sparkling form and ready to take on the world.
Of course, what transpired was that when it came down to it he struggled for runs, and didn't look all too great while doing so. Scores of 20, 4, 0 and 3 in his four knocks, at an average of 6.75. Sparkling it was not. So why was his triumphant run of form halted so suddenly in the test matches?
Well, quite simply, what came before the tests had no relevance to what happened throughout the series. In two games Strauss batted well, and then in three other games he didn't. This doesn't make him a bad player. This doesn't mean his place is under threat. This doesn't make him such a worry that he has to be shipped out on loan to Somerset so he can try and score runs against the Indian attack. We saw that his runs against Sri Lanka at Uxbridge meant very little in the actual nitty gritty. If he gets a duck at Taunton it doesn't mean he won't score a century in the first test. It all smacks of unnecessary panic from the powers that be because everyone is in form except the undroppable captain, and he needs to get himself into form quick.
Instead of being fitted up for his Somerset club blazer, Strauss should be sitting with his feet up while the rest of the boys play in the ODIs, or even better, playing in the T20s for Middlesex. If Strauss needs one thing at the moment, it's to feel bat on ball, which is exactly what he'd do if he were to play in the T20s (even though he's effectively retired from all limited over cricket). What he doesn't need is the spotlight to follow him to Somerset and to be singled out as a "problem player". Whether Strauss makes runs or not for Somerset is irrelevant. As he knows best, it's what happens during the test matches that matter, which makes the decision to send him to Taunton very silly indeed.
Picking The Bones Out of England v Sri Lanka
Nimal Mendis! Michael Ondaatje! Prof. Cyril Ponnamperuma! Can you hear me Prof. Cyril Ponnamperuma? Your boys have taken one hell of a beating!
Googling eminent Sri Lankans aside, England have won the first test series of the summer 1-0. That makes it their fifth test series victory in a row, (which makes it seven out of eight since Andy Flower took over permanently - and the other one was a draw), but weirdly it seems like they've won by default. Other than a mad couple of hours as Sri Lanka imploded at Cardiff, all three tests could / should have been drawn, which probably would have been the apt result to what's been a fairly unsatisfactory series.
Dogged by poor ticket sales, poor wickets and worse weather, the opening salvo to the English summer of cricket has been not much more than a very damp squib. While England did play the better cricket, Sri Lanka did what they had to do to not lose the games, and but for a mindless collapse, would have saved the series very easily. Sri Lanka were unfairly underestimated before the start, and while there were some iffy performances, there were some flashes of brilliance which shows just how difficult a task England will have in the subcontinent when they take Sri Lanka on in their back yard this winter.
England will take a lot out of this series, even if the series is unlikely to make it to a 7 disk DVD collection. England were on top in all three games, and but for the rain would have won them all. In Cardiff they got a lead, applied the pressure and forced a result, and were attempting to do so at both Lord's and the Rose Bowl. The bowling was hit and miss, with some brilliance in amongst some utter filth but the one constant was the excellent batting. Strauss aside, each of England's seven bats produced this series, and are looking a very formidable outfit. And while the Anderson-less bowlers struggled at Lord's, man-of-the-series Tremlett came of age in his first home series in four years, producing some quite exquisite displays. In partnership with Anderson, England have a new-ball duo that can frighten any team in the world. (As long as Tremlett is actually given the new ball).
It was by far a vintage series for England, and while the series failed to capture the imagination of the general public, England got an awful lot out of it. Ultimately, this series was a warm-up for the Indian tests later this summer, and all England needed to do was to limber up ahead of it. Most of the batsmen got runs, and most of the bowlers took wickets. They continued that winning (or at least, not losing) feeling, and come out of the series with far more answers than questions. In the annals of time this won't be seen as one of the classic test series, but going forward, this could be one of the classic England teams.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Time to Banish Broad?
England have a dilemma, and his name is Stuart Broad. 37 tests into his test career, and Broad is averaging a very average 36 with the ball. Given leeway in terms of his average and fairly poor return with the ball for the early part of his test career due to his young age, England will have wanted Broad to have kicked on by now to become one of the world's best. Put simply, he hasn't done that.
Three and a half years in test cricket (and almost five years in international cricket) should mean he's able to adapt to conditions and consistently take wickets. Yet still he belies his 142 international appearances by mindlessly banging the ball in short irregardless of match conditions, pitch conditions, or batsman weaknesses.
Broad was preferred in this game to Steven Finn - a bowler who does have a wonky radar, but bowls a hell of a lot of wicket taking balls. This afternoon (Day 2) at the Rose Bowl, Broad bowled nigh on every ball short of a length, and didn't even look close to taking a wicket. Broad isn't at all threatening with the short ball, which makes his tactics seem all the more odd. Broad appears to believe that just because he is a tall man, he has to bowl at the batsman's head and stare him down each time the batsman dare swipe at one. It's all becoming rather tedious.
If Broad wants a lesson on how a tall player can take test wickets, he should look down at the other end to see Chris Tremlett. Tremlett is a full two inches taller than the dwarf sized Broad, yet doesn't resort to attempting to break the batsman's face every ball. Instead, Tremlett bowls a full length in order to get the batsman coming forward, and takes wickets because he naturally gets extra bounce which is often all too good for the batsmen. Tremlett has only played 8 tests. It should be Broad who is showing Tremlett how it's done, not the other way around.
For three years, there wasn't a hint of Broad being dropped at all. However, if England are aiming for number one, they have to recognise when player's aren't pulling their weight, and act. That means that batsmen have to score runs, and bowlers have to take wickets. Broad just isn't taking enough wickets - he hasn't taken more than two in an innings since the tour of South Africa over 18 months ago - which quite simply is nowhere near good enough. There's no doubt that he can do it - the Ashes winning spell at the Oval in 2009 is testament to that. But those sorts of performances are becoming increasingly distant, and can England afford to have someone who isn't performing to the required level anywhere regularly enough? The key at the Oval was that Broad bowled full and attacked the stumps, with four of the five victims either being bowled or trapped lbw. If Broad returns to bowling that sort of length, he can be a very potent bowler, but he hasn't really done that since that heady day back in 2009.
Dropping Broad from the test team may seem odd when he starts his stint as an England captain next week, but it's not as if there's a shortage of test quality replacements available to come in. Finn, Bresnan, Shahzad, Onions and even Dernbach are all more than good enough and at the moment only loyalty is keeping Broad ahead of them. Broad's injury during the Ashes was unfortunate, but the fact that England won two games by an innings after he went home has proved that he is indeed a dispensible player. If England really do want to become the number one team in the world, they have to start by putting out a team of their best players. That means the batsmen who are to score the most runs, and bowlers who are going to take the most wickets. Quite simply, Stuart Broad does not take enough wickets to justify his place in the test team, and as harsh or ruthless as it may be, shouldn't be in the England test team
And if you head over to The Short Midwicket Facebook page, you can vote on who should replace Broad (if anyone) - and while you're there you could 'like' us too!
Three and a half years in test cricket (and almost five years in international cricket) should mean he's able to adapt to conditions and consistently take wickets. Yet still he belies his 142 international appearances by mindlessly banging the ball in short irregardless of match conditions, pitch conditions, or batsman weaknesses.
Broad was preferred in this game to Steven Finn - a bowler who does have a wonky radar, but bowls a hell of a lot of wicket taking balls. This afternoon (Day 2) at the Rose Bowl, Broad bowled nigh on every ball short of a length, and didn't even look close to taking a wicket. Broad isn't at all threatening with the short ball, which makes his tactics seem all the more odd. Broad appears to believe that just because he is a tall man, he has to bowl at the batsman's head and stare him down each time the batsman dare swipe at one. It's all becoming rather tedious.
If Broad wants a lesson on how a tall player can take test wickets, he should look down at the other end to see Chris Tremlett. Tremlett is a full two inches taller than the dwarf sized Broad, yet doesn't resort to attempting to break the batsman's face every ball. Instead, Tremlett bowls a full length in order to get the batsman coming forward, and takes wickets because he naturally gets extra bounce which is often all too good for the batsmen. Tremlett has only played 8 tests. It should be Broad who is showing Tremlett how it's done, not the other way around.
For three years, there wasn't a hint of Broad being dropped at all. However, if England are aiming for number one, they have to recognise when player's aren't pulling their weight, and act. That means that batsmen have to score runs, and bowlers have to take wickets. Broad just isn't taking enough wickets - he hasn't taken more than two in an innings since the tour of South Africa over 18 months ago - which quite simply is nowhere near good enough. There's no doubt that he can do it - the Ashes winning spell at the Oval in 2009 is testament to that. But those sorts of performances are becoming increasingly distant, and can England afford to have someone who isn't performing to the required level anywhere regularly enough? The key at the Oval was that Broad bowled full and attacked the stumps, with four of the five victims either being bowled or trapped lbw. If Broad returns to bowling that sort of length, he can be a very potent bowler, but he hasn't really done that since that heady day back in 2009.
Dropping Broad from the test team may seem odd when he starts his stint as an England captain next week, but it's not as if there's a shortage of test quality replacements available to come in. Finn, Bresnan, Shahzad, Onions and even Dernbach are all more than good enough and at the moment only loyalty is keeping Broad ahead of them. Broad's injury during the Ashes was unfortunate, but the fact that England won two games by an innings after he went home has proved that he is indeed a dispensible player. If England really do want to become the number one team in the world, they have to start by putting out a team of their best players. That means the batsmen who are to score the most runs, and bowlers who are going to take the most wickets. Quite simply, Stuart Broad does not take enough wickets to justify his place in the test team, and as harsh or ruthless as it may be, shouldn't be in the England test team
And if you head over to The Short Midwicket Facebook page, you can vote on who should replace Broad (if anyone) - and while you're there you could 'like' us too!
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.
Monday, 6 June 2011
Day Four at Lord's
Before play started...: Many runs and a bit of rain. Could go either way, but draw most likely.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Came up short of England's score thanks to a bit of a collapse when they should have had a big lead. Didn't make many inroads into England's batting either.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Haven't let England get away from them, and if a declaration is timed poorly could be in with a sniff.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Another failure for Strauss - how long before his lack of runs becomes worrying?
Where did it all go right for England?: Somehow eked out a lead, and can force the pace of this game with quick runs in the morning. The game is in their hands.
Who won each session?: Afternoon - England. Evening - Probably England.
Who's winning the game?: England. If they score quickly in the first session (or longer if they want) they can set either set Sri Lanka an unrealistic target, or dangle a carrot. After what happened at Cardiff with the scoreboard pressure, England should be favourites, but will do well to force a result.
Shot of the day: Herath's slog-sweep-stumble for six off Swann. Village, but brilliant.
Ball of the day: Swann to Herath. Turned a couple of absolute rippers beyond the outside edge, before forcing the stumping. Off-spin to left-handers at it's best.
Man of the day: Finn bowled well this morning, as did Swann, but Cook's runs means he probably shades it. Decent performance all round for England though.
Mug(s) of the day: Bit harsh, but Strauss. Yet another failure to a left-arm seamer, and it's becoming a real worry. Especially with a certain Zaheer Khan to come over the summer...
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Came up short of England's score thanks to a bit of a collapse when they should have had a big lead. Didn't make many inroads into England's batting either.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Haven't let England get away from them, and if a declaration is timed poorly could be in with a sniff.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Another failure for Strauss - how long before his lack of runs becomes worrying?
Where did it all go right for England?: Somehow eked out a lead, and can force the pace of this game with quick runs in the morning. The game is in their hands.
Who won each session?: Afternoon - England. Evening - Probably England.
Who's winning the game?: England. If they score quickly in the first session (or longer if they want) they can set either set Sri Lanka an unrealistic target, or dangle a carrot. After what happened at Cardiff with the scoreboard pressure, England should be favourites, but will do well to force a result.
Shot of the day: Herath's slog-sweep-stumble for six off Swann. Village, but brilliant.
Ball of the day: Swann to Herath. Turned a couple of absolute rippers beyond the outside edge, before forcing the stumping. Off-spin to left-handers at it's best.
Man of the day: Finn bowled well this morning, as did Swann, but Cook's runs means he probably shades it. Decent performance all round for England though.
Mug(s) of the day: Bit harsh, but Strauss. Yet another failure to a left-arm seamer, and it's becoming a real worry. Especially with a certain Zaheer Khan to come over the summer...
Finn's Nifty Fifty
Today, Steven Finn broke a long-standing record by becoming the fastest man in English test history to get to 50 test wickets. At just 22 years and 63 days, and in his 12th test match, Finn has broken the previous record (set by Ian Botham) by 6 months. Pretty good going.
So for someone who clearly takes wickets, and has an average of 26, why hasn't Finn been in the team? Dropped after Perth and only back in here thanks to Jimmy Anderson's injury, Finn hasn't nailed down a place in the team, and chances are he'll drop out again when Anderson returns.
The key stat to look at is Finn's run rate in tests. 3.97. While he has a very handy knack of taking wickets, he does leak runs, and with a lot of England's plans revolving around keeping it tight and creating pressure, having a leaky bowler who is spraying it around can undo all of the hard work created at the other end. At the time of being dropped during the Ashes, Finn was the leading wicket taker of the series, but at what cost? His economy rates Down Under don't make pretty reading - 3.71, 6.25, 4.43, 3.33, 4.61, 5.73. While England valued his wickets, they went for the more frugal Tim Bresnan at Melbourne, and the rest is history.
But, while Finn struggles to stem the flow of runs, he does have that very happy knack of taking wickets. 50 wickets in 12 matches is testament to that. Finn is a young man, and is still learning his craft as a fast bowler. No doubt in time he'll be able to keep it tight and bowl far more consistently, but at the moment he sprays it around far too often. When Anderson, or even Bresnan becomes fit again, the question has to be whether England value a man who will take wickets at a high tariff, or create pressure and be less effective but more cheap.
It is a tricky one. Ultimately it's wickets that win test matches, and Finn takes wickets. But a lot of England's plans revolve around stifling the opposition, and forcing mistakes caused by scoreboard pressure. While Tremlett and Broad hardly covered themselves in glory this test match, normally England's attack is a much less generous proposition, and may have winkled out a few more wickets yesterday thanks to a low run rate forcing Sri Lankans to take risks attempting to force the pace.
Will Finn be dropped to make way when Anderson returns? Probably. The Andocracy have made it clear what their plans are for successful test cricket, and they can't afford to have one leaky bowler conceding over a hundred each innings. But will Steven Finn take hundreds more test wickets for England? Absolutely. Finn is still learning his craft, and there's nowhere more unforgiving than in test cricket. As Finn matures and grows in experience, any question about him being an expensive bowler will be out of the window, and he'll be an automatic pick as part of England's attack. But he quite clearly isn't there yet (as Matt Prior's 25 byes can testify) and what Finn needs to do is to go away from the glare of international cricket for a while, and just bowl. He's been very good in taking his first 50 test wickets. He'll be excellent as he takes his next few hundred.
So for someone who clearly takes wickets, and has an average of 26, why hasn't Finn been in the team? Dropped after Perth and only back in here thanks to Jimmy Anderson's injury, Finn hasn't nailed down a place in the team, and chances are he'll drop out again when Anderson returns.
The key stat to look at is Finn's run rate in tests. 3.97. While he has a very handy knack of taking wickets, he does leak runs, and with a lot of England's plans revolving around keeping it tight and creating pressure, having a leaky bowler who is spraying it around can undo all of the hard work created at the other end. At the time of being dropped during the Ashes, Finn was the leading wicket taker of the series, but at what cost? His economy rates Down Under don't make pretty reading - 3.71, 6.25, 4.43, 3.33, 4.61, 5.73. While England valued his wickets, they went for the more frugal Tim Bresnan at Melbourne, and the rest is history.
But, while Finn struggles to stem the flow of runs, he does have that very happy knack of taking wickets. 50 wickets in 12 matches is testament to that. Finn is a young man, and is still learning his craft as a fast bowler. No doubt in time he'll be able to keep it tight and bowl far more consistently, but at the moment he sprays it around far too often. When Anderson, or even Bresnan becomes fit again, the question has to be whether England value a man who will take wickets at a high tariff, or create pressure and be less effective but more cheap.
It is a tricky one. Ultimately it's wickets that win test matches, and Finn takes wickets. But a lot of England's plans revolve around stifling the opposition, and forcing mistakes caused by scoreboard pressure. While Tremlett and Broad hardly covered themselves in glory this test match, normally England's attack is a much less generous proposition, and may have winkled out a few more wickets yesterday thanks to a low run rate forcing Sri Lankans to take risks attempting to force the pace.
Will Finn be dropped to make way when Anderson returns? Probably. The Andocracy have made it clear what their plans are for successful test cricket, and they can't afford to have one leaky bowler conceding over a hundred each innings. But will Steven Finn take hundreds more test wickets for England? Absolutely. Finn is still learning his craft, and there's nowhere more unforgiving than in test cricket. As Finn matures and grows in experience, any question about him being an expensive bowler will be out of the window, and he'll be an automatic pick as part of England's attack. But he quite clearly isn't there yet (as Matt Prior's 25 byes can testify) and what Finn needs to do is to go away from the glare of international cricket for a while, and just bowl. He's been very good in taking his first 50 test wickets. He'll be excellent as he takes his next few hundred.
Day Three at Lord's
Before play started...: A lot of runs and not a great deal of wickets over the first two days
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Rain in the evening stopped them reaching England's score which could have made this game very interesting with two days left
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Plenty more runs before the rain
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Bowled better than Day 2, but still not to the required level.
Where did it all go right for England?: The bowling did improve (Finn especially) which is a slight bonus. The rain means that Sri Lanka are probably going to be unable to force a result.
Who won each session?: Morning and Afternoon - Sri Lanka. Evening - Rain.
Who's winning the game?: Sri Lanka are able to get a handy lead and despite the rain, we all know from last week what scoreboard pressure can do. England should bat through, but Sri Lanka are probably favourites at this stage.
Shot of the day: Jayawardene driving for four. Exquisite.
Ball of the day: Tremlett taking Sangakkara's wicket. Nice bit of bowling.
Man of the day: Tillakaratne Dilshan - kept going despite clearly being in immense physical pain to pull through for his team. Deserved the double hundred.
Mug(s) of the day: Weather. Rain isn't fun for anyone.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Rain in the evening stopped them reaching England's score which could have made this game very interesting with two days left
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Plenty more runs before the rain
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Bowled better than Day 2, but still not to the required level.
Where did it all go right for England?: The bowling did improve (Finn especially) which is a slight bonus. The rain means that Sri Lanka are probably going to be unable to force a result.
Who won each session?: Morning and Afternoon - Sri Lanka. Evening - Rain.
Who's winning the game?: Sri Lanka are able to get a handy lead and despite the rain, we all know from last week what scoreboard pressure can do. England should bat through, but Sri Lanka are probably favourites at this stage.
Shot of the day: Jayawardene driving for four. Exquisite.
Ball of the day: Tremlett taking Sangakkara's wicket. Nice bit of bowling.
Man of the day: Tillakaratne Dilshan - kept going despite clearly being in immense physical pain to pull through for his team. Deserved the double hundred.
Mug(s) of the day: Weather. Rain isn't fun for anyone.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Prior - The New Gilchrist?
Whenever a player stands out as being the best ever in his field, he is automatically used as a yardstick to judge others by. Any new half-decent spinner will be compared to Warne. A batsman who starts making a few runs will be touted as a successor to Bradman. And a wicketkeeper who starts scoring quickly will be called the new Gilchrist. Today Matt Prior completed his century - his second successive ton in a test shirt, and they've both come at a fair lick. So with the traditional hyperbole that so often follows English cricketers before coming disappointingly short, the press box went into overdrive, with Prior / Gilchrist comparisons hitting Twitter almost as often as Justin Bieber gets requests to post his phone number.
So what would being "the new Gilchrist" entail? Well, the 'Gilchrist', or the attacking wicket-keeper batsman role is all about scoring quickly. Coming in at number seven, the Gilchrist can either further cement the superiority of an innings by blazing a quickfire century, or turn around a failing innings by chipping in with handy quick runs after the top order failed. The Gilchrist always puts the team's needs above his personal average, sometimes giving his wicket away in the noble cause of forcing the pace. In terms of wicket-keeping, the Gilchrist is a more than capable keeper - not unprone to the odd howler but generally sound.
It's impossible to ignore that Prior ticks a lot of these boxes. He has a First Class strike rate of 67 (test SR of 64), so he knows where the boundary is. And with 5 test tons and an average of over 43 to his name, he is also prone to finding those boundaries fairly regularly. However, Gilchrist, who as I said earlier is the benchmark, made 17 test tons at 47, with a colossal strike rate of 82. While Prior is doing pretty damn well for himself, Gilchrist comparisons may be a touch premature.
There's no doubting that Matt Prior is a much improved keeper (although he has only made 4 stumpings in a four year test career, much of which he's spent keeping to 'the best attacking spinner in the world') and an excellent batsman down the order. Of the keepers currently plying their trade in test cricket, Prior is probably the most consistent batsman, and a massive reason why England have been so successful recently. It's probably fair to say that Matt Prior is the best wicket-keeper/batsman in the world. However, as with Warne, Bradman et al, Gilchrist was a one-off - the sort of cricketer that defines a role, rather than letting the role define him. While there is absolutely no shame at all in being currently the best in the world, perhaps those blowing the Matt Prior horn should reign in the notion that he's the best ever.
So what would being "the new Gilchrist" entail? Well, the 'Gilchrist', or the attacking wicket-keeper batsman role is all about scoring quickly. Coming in at number seven, the Gilchrist can either further cement the superiority of an innings by blazing a quickfire century, or turn around a failing innings by chipping in with handy quick runs after the top order failed. The Gilchrist always puts the team's needs above his personal average, sometimes giving his wicket away in the noble cause of forcing the pace. In terms of wicket-keeping, the Gilchrist is a more than capable keeper - not unprone to the odd howler but generally sound.
It's impossible to ignore that Prior ticks a lot of these boxes. He has a First Class strike rate of 67 (test SR of 64), so he knows where the boundary is. And with 5 test tons and an average of over 43 to his name, he is also prone to finding those boundaries fairly regularly. However, Gilchrist, who as I said earlier is the benchmark, made 17 test tons at 47, with a colossal strike rate of 82. While Prior is doing pretty damn well for himself, Gilchrist comparisons may be a touch premature.
There's no doubting that Matt Prior is a much improved keeper (although he has only made 4 stumpings in a four year test career, much of which he's spent keeping to 'the best attacking spinner in the world') and an excellent batsman down the order. Of the keepers currently plying their trade in test cricket, Prior is probably the most consistent batsman, and a massive reason why England have been so successful recently. It's probably fair to say that Matt Prior is the best wicket-keeper/batsman in the world. However, as with Warne, Bradman et al, Gilchrist was a one-off - the sort of cricketer that defines a role, rather than letting the role define him. While there is absolutely no shame at all in being currently the best in the world, perhaps those blowing the Matt Prior horn should reign in the notion that he's the best ever.
Day Two at Lord's
Before play started...: Sri Lanka started well after winning the toss and sticking England in, but the hosts fought back as honours were even after Day 1
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Bowled (and fielded) very poorly as England raced along to lunch, probably adding 50-70 more runs then they should have been allowed to.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: The big partnership keeping them well in this match
Where did it all go wrong for England?: The bowling was erratic and not particularly threatening.
Where did it all go right for England?: The late order runs (at a great pace) in the morning meant realistically England shouldn't lose.
Who won each session?: Morning - England. Afternoon and Evening - Sri Lanka.
Who's winning the game?: Always favour runs on the board, but with Dilshan in and Sri Lanka only 200-odd behind, they could get a handy first innings lead.
Shot of the day: Paranavitana creaming Finn through the covers for an exquisite four. Punishing.
Ball of the day: One of the ones from Broad's first over, or Tremlett's to Dilshan which lifted sharply and hit the thumb. But not a great day for the bowlers otherwise...
Man of the day: Tillakaratne Dilshan - a glorious hundred which was just what his team needed after a collapse at Cardiff and conceding plenty in the first innings. (Props too to Matt Prior for completing the hundred)
Mug(s) of the day: The bowlers. It wasn't a great day to turn your arm over.
Short Midwicket Name Drops of the Day: Monty Panesar. Weirdly, not at the cricket, but outside Lush at Victoria Station. He looked surprised to be recognised on a day out in London with wifey.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Bowled (and fielded) very poorly as England raced along to lunch, probably adding 50-70 more runs then they should have been allowed to.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: The big partnership keeping them well in this match
Where did it all go wrong for England?: The bowling was erratic and not particularly threatening.
Where did it all go right for England?: The late order runs (at a great pace) in the morning meant realistically England shouldn't lose.
Who won each session?: Morning - England. Afternoon and Evening - Sri Lanka.
Who's winning the game?: Always favour runs on the board, but with Dilshan in and Sri Lanka only 200-odd behind, they could get a handy first innings lead.
Shot of the day: Paranavitana creaming Finn through the covers for an exquisite four. Punishing.
Ball of the day: One of the ones from Broad's first over, or Tremlett's to Dilshan which lifted sharply and hit the thumb. But not a great day for the bowlers otherwise...
Man of the day: Tillakaratne Dilshan - a glorious hundred which was just what his team needed after a collapse at Cardiff and conceding plenty in the first innings. (Props too to Matt Prior for completing the hundred)
Mug(s) of the day: The bowlers. It wasn't a great day to turn your arm over.
Short Midwicket Name Drops of the Day: Monty Panesar. Weirdly, not at the cricket, but outside Lush at Victoria Station. He looked surprised to be recognised on a day out in London with wifey.
Friday, 3 June 2011
Eoin Morgan - Test Batsman
Today, Eoin Morgan played a test innings. It wasn't a gritty, nurdly, innings. He took chances, punished bad balls, and attacked good ones. He didn't leave many, and he scored quickly. It was not a conventional test innings, but it was an Eoin Morgan innings.
It would be foolish to expect all of the batsmen in a line up to play in the same way. Some batsmen just want to bat for as long as they can, and any run they pick up is a handy bonus to the time spent out in the middle. Some batsmen want to show off by playing loose, expansive shots, in order to entertain and look good. There are others who will leave anything outside off-stump, and punish anything that isn't. Eoin Morgan isn't a conventional batsman, and while there are certain expectations for a test batsman, he doesn't appear to heed them.
Morgan's strength is that he is an exceptional shot maker - he has the full range of strokes and is in complete control of everything he does. The innings he played today was his natural game - he hit two sixes, yet there was nothing reckless about either. He scored quickly, but didn't compromise his wicket. He scored runs, lots of them, and at a good lick, which is what he's in the team to do.
There have been some questions about Morgan's inclusion in the test team, mainly about the flaws that open up in his technique when playing defensively. Yes, there are flaws, and Morgan will have to mend them if he is to become truly one of the best in the world, but much of those flaws occur when he is trying to do something he is not comfortable with - when he is playing outside of his natural game. Today, he played how he wanted to play, and reaped the rewards of a well-played fifty in an important partnership in the context of the match.
When Eoin Morgan plays an Eoin Morgan innings, there is no question that he is test material. Down the line he may go through a bad patch and be under public pressure, but the worst thing he can do is to try and become a player that he is not. Eoin Morgan plays as only Eoin Morgan can, and judging by today's performance, if he continues to play as well as he did today, we could be seeing the makings of a proper test cricketer.
It would be foolish to expect all of the batsmen in a line up to play in the same way. Some batsmen just want to bat for as long as they can, and any run they pick up is a handy bonus to the time spent out in the middle. Some batsmen want to show off by playing loose, expansive shots, in order to entertain and look good. There are others who will leave anything outside off-stump, and punish anything that isn't. Eoin Morgan isn't a conventional batsman, and while there are certain expectations for a test batsman, he doesn't appear to heed them.
Morgan's strength is that he is an exceptional shot maker - he has the full range of strokes and is in complete control of everything he does. The innings he played today was his natural game - he hit two sixes, yet there was nothing reckless about either. He scored quickly, but didn't compromise his wicket. He scored runs, lots of them, and at a good lick, which is what he's in the team to do.
There have been some questions about Morgan's inclusion in the test team, mainly about the flaws that open up in his technique when playing defensively. Yes, there are flaws, and Morgan will have to mend them if he is to become truly one of the best in the world, but much of those flaws occur when he is trying to do something he is not comfortable with - when he is playing outside of his natural game. Today, he played how he wanted to play, and reaped the rewards of a well-played fifty in an important partnership in the context of the match.
When Eoin Morgan plays an Eoin Morgan innings, there is no question that he is test material. Down the line he may go through a bad patch and be under public pressure, but the worst thing he can do is to try and become a player that he is not. Eoin Morgan plays as only Eoin Morgan can, and judging by today's performance, if he continues to play as well as he did today, we could be seeing the makings of a proper test cricketer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)