England somehow managed to revive a seemingly doomed tour by winning four consecutive ODIs and, in the process, winning their first major foreign tournament for almost a decade. Here are ratings for all bowlers (and Jamie Dalrymple!) who took part in the CB Series.
James Anderson 8/10
Anderson only played in four games and one victory, but he bowled with sufficient vigour to guarantee a starting place in the World Cup. His fielding was also a bright spot throughout.
Jamie Dalrymple 4
Dalrymple left the series in a highly precarious position: as the sixth bowler and seventh batsman. He chipped in with a couple of useful contributions down the order, especially an 18-ball 30 against Australia in the group stages, but his bowling, previously so consistent, regressed alarmingly and he bowled an average of only 3.4 overs an innings – if he’s not a reliable fifth bowler, what is he? While his brilliant catch in the second final will long be remembered and he remains a combative cricketer, England look a much stronger side with another batsman in his place.
Jon Lewis 7
Lewis played four games and did a reasonable job throughout, scaring Australia in taking 4/35 on one occasion. His accuracy and skilled new-ball bowling will win him a place in the World Cup squad, but he will have to hope England opt for four seamers if he is to play.
Liam Plunkett 8
Went for five and a half an over; but he bowled a fantastic number of near-unplayable deliveries, twice ripping the heart out of the Australian top order with a three-wicket burst. He also batted with great effect at number nine, fielded well and is clearly resilient character and has overtaken Lewis is in the bowling pecking order.
Sajid Mahmood 5
Well, it could have been worse. Mahmood improved as the series progressed and developed a fine slower ball, but fundamentally lacks the necessary control and will be very lucky to go to the World Cup.
Monty Panesar 7
His stats didn’t quite do him justice, but Panesar bowled – and fielded - well throughout to make him an automatic one-day selection.
Chris Tremlett 2
Many were pleased at his call-up – but Tremlett showed too little aggression and spirit with the ball, while he fielded cumbersomely. Now goes right to the back of the fast-bowling queue.
Showing posts with label CB Series 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CB Series 2007. Show all posts
Monday, 12 February 2007
Collingwood and Flintoff restore some English pride
England somehow managed to revive a seemingly doomed tour by winning four consecutive ODIs and, in the process, winning their first major foreign tournament for almost a decade. Here are ratings for all the batsmen, as well as the 'keeper, who took part in the CB Series.
Ian Bell 6/10
Bell was a constant throughout the ODIs at number three. He consistently made 20s and 30s but only made two 50s (though both were in victories over Australia). There were whispers over the rate at which Bell scored his runs, as well as his running between the wickets, but, especially with his fine fielding, he was a qualified success and is in possession of a spot for the World Cup.
Ravi Bopara 6
Bopara played only one game, in which he made useful cameos with bat and ball, and helped to reinvigorate a struggling side. But has he done enough to earn a place in the World Cup squad?
Paul Collingwood 9
For his first six games, Collingwood looked as if his spirit had been shaken irrevocably by the events of the Ashes. But, after missing a game through illness, Collingwood returned in magnificent style, scoring two match-winning centuries and a 70 to re-emerge as a vital member of England’s one-day batting line-up; his industry, experience, running between the wickets and penchant for hitting boundaries make him an indispensable facet of the side. There was more good news for Collingwood: he bowled very steadily throughout, taking eight wickets and going at only 4.7 an over, overtaking Dalrymple as England’s fifth bowler in the process; meanwhile, his fielding remained superlative.
Andrew Flintoff 8
Flintoff has taken enough knocks to last a career on this tour, but he remained defiant till the end and earned some reward when his improving captaincy led England to victory in he finals. He only scored one fifty, but generally batted effectively at six, scoring important runs in the finals. Flintoff’s bowling seemed on the verge of collapse halfway through the series but, by the series’ end, he was back to his talismanic best, leading a vibrant side by example.
Ed Joyce 6.5
Joyce began the series unsure of himself and in the middle-order; he ended it with three failures, and several injudicious shots, as opener. But in between he scored a confidence-boosting 66 against New Zealand, then a superb century against Australia. He is an inherently elegant batsman whose square-of-the-wicket play is particularly effective but is also happy to use his feet and hit over the top during the Powerplay overs.
Mal Loye 6
Fans called desperately for his selection, thinking his idiosyncratic style would make an instant impact. He was certainly not overawed, and his slog sweep certainly got people excited; but he too often got out to rash shots outside off-stump, particularly against the left-armers. After a terrible decision in the first final, Loye played with more selectivity in the second, without overly diminishing his flair. But a mix-up ended his innings on 45, leaving his World Cup still up in air. Yet he is deserving of a place – on the short boundaries in the Caribbean, his characteristic shot could wreak havoc. If he doesn’t, who else can satisfactorily exploit the Powerplays?
Paul Nixon 6
His selection continues to seem ridiculous, but his ‘keeping was good; his experience, gift of the gab and value to team spirit immeasurable. The selectors picked him for his lower-order batting – and, though he too often failed when batting late on, he lead England home in the innings that most mattered.
Kevin Pietersen 8
Only played the opening game, and scored a typically belligerent 82; despite Collingwood’s recent innings, he is by far England’s finest ODI batsman. But he will be extra keen to prove it is no more than an anomaly that finals victory came without him.
Andrew Strauss 3
Only Steve Harmison’s stock fell more in Australia; Strauss did not make more than 55 in 20 international innings. His game has disintegrated, and it must be hoped the selectors recognise that Joyce performs the Strauss role better than he does currently, while Loye, statistically only marginally more successful, provides a whole new option.
Michael Vaughan 5
Came back amidst huge hope that he would rekindle the spirit of ’05. Alas, the hopes proved ill-founded, although England won two of the three games he played in. His captaincy was as canny as ever, but on batting alone he was patently not worth selection.
Ian Bell 6/10
Bell was a constant throughout the ODIs at number three. He consistently made 20s and 30s but only made two 50s (though both were in victories over Australia). There were whispers over the rate at which Bell scored his runs, as well as his running between the wickets, but, especially with his fine fielding, he was a qualified success and is in possession of a spot for the World Cup.
Ravi Bopara 6
Bopara played only one game, in which he made useful cameos with bat and ball, and helped to reinvigorate a struggling side. But has he done enough to earn a place in the World Cup squad?
Paul Collingwood 9
For his first six games, Collingwood looked as if his spirit had been shaken irrevocably by the events of the Ashes. But, after missing a game through illness, Collingwood returned in magnificent style, scoring two match-winning centuries and a 70 to re-emerge as a vital member of England’s one-day batting line-up; his industry, experience, running between the wickets and penchant for hitting boundaries make him an indispensable facet of the side. There was more good news for Collingwood: he bowled very steadily throughout, taking eight wickets and going at only 4.7 an over, overtaking Dalrymple as England’s fifth bowler in the process; meanwhile, his fielding remained superlative.
Andrew Flintoff 8
Flintoff has taken enough knocks to last a career on this tour, but he remained defiant till the end and earned some reward when his improving captaincy led England to victory in he finals. He only scored one fifty, but generally batted effectively at six, scoring important runs in the finals. Flintoff’s bowling seemed on the verge of collapse halfway through the series but, by the series’ end, he was back to his talismanic best, leading a vibrant side by example.
Ed Joyce 6.5
Joyce began the series unsure of himself and in the middle-order; he ended it with three failures, and several injudicious shots, as opener. But in between he scored a confidence-boosting 66 against New Zealand, then a superb century against Australia. He is an inherently elegant batsman whose square-of-the-wicket play is particularly effective but is also happy to use his feet and hit over the top during the Powerplay overs.
Mal Loye 6
Fans called desperately for his selection, thinking his idiosyncratic style would make an instant impact. He was certainly not overawed, and his slog sweep certainly got people excited; but he too often got out to rash shots outside off-stump, particularly against the left-armers. After a terrible decision in the first final, Loye played with more selectivity in the second, without overly diminishing his flair. But a mix-up ended his innings on 45, leaving his World Cup still up in air. Yet he is deserving of a place – on the short boundaries in the Caribbean, his characteristic shot could wreak havoc. If he doesn’t, who else can satisfactorily exploit the Powerplays?
Paul Nixon 6
His selection continues to seem ridiculous, but his ‘keeping was good; his experience, gift of the gab and value to team spirit immeasurable. The selectors picked him for his lower-order batting – and, though he too often failed when batting late on, he lead England home in the innings that most mattered.
Kevin Pietersen 8
Only played the opening game, and scored a typically belligerent 82; despite Collingwood’s recent innings, he is by far England’s finest ODI batsman. But he will be extra keen to prove it is no more than an anomaly that finals victory came without him.
Andrew Strauss 3
Only Steve Harmison’s stock fell more in Australia; Strauss did not make more than 55 in 20 international innings. His game has disintegrated, and it must be hoped the selectors recognise that Joyce performs the Strauss role better than he does currently, while Loye, statistically only marginally more successful, provides a whole new option.
Michael Vaughan 5
Came back amidst huge hope that he would rekindle the spirit of ’05. Alas, the hopes proved ill-founded, although England won two of the three games he played in. His captaincy was as canny as ever, but on batting alone he was patently not worth selection.
Sunday, 11 February 2007
The end of England’s ODI woes?
After more than three months in Australia, England finally have something to show for their endeavours. Victory in the CB Series patently does not come close to making amends for Ashes humiliation. But, especially after being the third-best side for the first two-thirds of this tournament, victory must be acknowledged as a remarkable achievement.
As a rule, Australia always win their triangular tournament. Australia have won eight of the last nine tournaments; the one they failed to lift, in 2001/02, came about after Stephen Fleming hatched a plot to allow South Africa to gain a bonus point and hence eliminate Australia despite winning four games. Of the eight finals they have won, six have ended 2-0 to the hosts. For a side as consistently poor in one-day cricket to beat them 2-0 after such a demoralising winter is testament to the resilience of their makeshift side.
Australia may point to an injury to their key all-rounder Andew Symonds. But what of England’s injuries to Kevin Pietersen, James Anderson, Jon Lewis, Michael Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick and Ian Blackwell, at least three of whom are in England’s best one-day side?
Prior to their superb sequence over the last 10 days, England had won six ODIs out of 26. They had not won four consecutive ODIs for almost 10 years, since their triumph in Sharjah at the end of 1997; that was also the last time they won a meaningful one-day tournament away from home (any excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh).
More by luck than judgement, England have cobbled together a confident outfit just in time for the World Cup. They are still unsure of their best side – especially if they are adamant Michael Vaughan must captain – but Ed Joyce, Liam Plunkett and Monty Panesar have added new dimensions to the team, in addition to an enjoyment too seldom seen from England in one-day cricket.
Above all, though, England are indebted to Andrew Flintoff and Paul Collingwood: two men who have been constants throughout (missing just one international all tour), have stood firm amidst the humiliations and, especially in Collingwood’s case, have been rejuvenated at the last. With their spirit and skill complemented by the new trio and the returning Pietersen and Anderson, a semi-final spot – elusive for 15 years – looks eminently attainable at the World Cup.
Look out for England ratings and full analysis for the CB Series
As a rule, Australia always win their triangular tournament. Australia have won eight of the last nine tournaments; the one they failed to lift, in 2001/02, came about after Stephen Fleming hatched a plot to allow South Africa to gain a bonus point and hence eliminate Australia despite winning four games. Of the eight finals they have won, six have ended 2-0 to the hosts. For a side as consistently poor in one-day cricket to beat them 2-0 after such a demoralising winter is testament to the resilience of their makeshift side.
Australia may point to an injury to their key all-rounder Andew Symonds. But what of England’s injuries to Kevin Pietersen, James Anderson, Jon Lewis, Michael Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick and Ian Blackwell, at least three of whom are in England’s best one-day side?
Prior to their superb sequence over the last 10 days, England had won six ODIs out of 26. They had not won four consecutive ODIs for almost 10 years, since their triumph in Sharjah at the end of 1997; that was also the last time they won a meaningful one-day tournament away from home (any excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh).
More by luck than judgement, England have cobbled together a confident outfit just in time for the World Cup. They are still unsure of their best side – especially if they are adamant Michael Vaughan must captain – but Ed Joyce, Liam Plunkett and Monty Panesar have added new dimensions to the team, in addition to an enjoyment too seldom seen from England in one-day cricket.
Above all, though, England are indebted to Andrew Flintoff and Paul Collingwood: two men who have been constants throughout (missing just one international all tour), have stood firm amidst the humiliations and, especially in Collingwood’s case, have been rejuvenated at the last. With their spirit and skill complemented by the new trio and the returning Pietersen and Anderson, a semi-final spot – elusive for 15 years – looks eminently attainable at the World Cup.
Look out for England ratings and full analysis for the CB Series
Friday, 9 February 2007
Collingwood the Lion Hearted!
Courage, resilience, determination and grit, the characteristics of Paul Collingwood, often the unsung hero. But until the last two matches, our very own Colli had gone worryingly off the boil. A man who gave his all (as usual) in the first two Ashes Test matches, in an attempt to prove his class and worth to the side, against the biggest of opposition, he patently lost his way following the horrific defeat in Adelaide, in which he watched a fantastic knock of 206 resigned to the back burner, as Australia pulled off a wonderful triumph.
This end result, following hour after hour of toil in the heat, albeit on a flat track, would have been hard for anyone to take and it seemed to hit Collingwood particuarly hard. With the woeful performances in the ODI series that followed, Collingwood fell further and further out of form and a worrying loss of confidence had set in. However, given an illness enforced rest and more importantly, a do or die situation, Collingwood lifted his head for one final fight. And what a fight he has put up in the last couple of matches, taking wickets at a decent economy, making incredible, as well as regulation catches, running out key opposition players with spectacular direct hits and scoring two consecutive ODI hundreds, joining the likes of Gooch, Gower, Stewart, Trescothick, Knight and Flintoff in doing so, a select group indeed.
So Collingwood has allayed any doubts that he should start at the World Cup, no doubt in that familar role between the two power players, Pietersen and Flintoff, where he goes dutifully about his business in tucking away those ones and twos and recovering the situation when the you know what hits the fan. He may not have the class of Graham Thorpe, but he does have the character and same ability to nurdle, which will serve England well for the rest of his improving career.
At Test level he still has much to prove, with his offstump technique a concern, especially against the best of opposition, on pitches which are not quite as placid as Adelaide. At ODI level though he will rightfully line up as part of England's middle order in the West Indies. There may be better batsman out there, with higher technical skills, to take Collingwood's Test place come the English summer, but there is no-one better suited to England's ODI middle order than he, the man with the temperament, fight and poise to cope with the most pressurised of situations. He is a Lion Heart in the truest sense of the word.
Chris Pallett
This end result, following hour after hour of toil in the heat, albeit on a flat track, would have been hard for anyone to take and it seemed to hit Collingwood particuarly hard. With the woeful performances in the ODI series that followed, Collingwood fell further and further out of form and a worrying loss of confidence had set in. However, given an illness enforced rest and more importantly, a do or die situation, Collingwood lifted his head for one final fight. And what a fight he has put up in the last couple of matches, taking wickets at a decent economy, making incredible, as well as regulation catches, running out key opposition players with spectacular direct hits and scoring two consecutive ODI hundreds, joining the likes of Gooch, Gower, Stewart, Trescothick, Knight and Flintoff in doing so, a select group indeed.
So Collingwood has allayed any doubts that he should start at the World Cup, no doubt in that familar role between the two power players, Pietersen and Flintoff, where he goes dutifully about his business in tucking away those ones and twos and recovering the situation when the you know what hits the fan. He may not have the class of Graham Thorpe, but he does have the character and same ability to nurdle, which will serve England well for the rest of his improving career.
At Test level he still has much to prove, with his offstump technique a concern, especially against the best of opposition, on pitches which are not quite as placid as Adelaide. At ODI level though he will rightfully line up as part of England's middle order in the West Indies. There may be better batsman out there, with higher technical skills, to take Collingwood's Test place come the English summer, but there is no-one better suited to England's ODI middle order than he, the man with the temperament, fight and poise to cope with the most pressurised of situations. He is a Lion Heart in the truest sense of the word.
Chris Pallett
Wednesday, 7 February 2007
Can Broad catapult himself into England’s World Cup squad?
Watching Sajid Mahmood’s haphazard bowling in Australia has been particularly galling because of the sense that England have better options they were stubbornly ignoring out of misplaced faith in Mahmood’s enigmatic qualities. Chief amongst these was Stuart Broad, the beanpole who has convinced so many sagacious observers of his qualities.
Broad is only 20; he has played 25 first-class games and taken 80 wickets at 30, yet already he is talked about as some sort of fast-bowling saviour. Reasons for this extend far beyond nostalgic reminiscing of his father’s heroics down under 20 years ago – when Stuart had just been born.
Broad junior boasts an easy, rhythmical action and has the ability to bowl in the high 80s. This, aided by his 6ft7in frame and increasing accuracy makes him a lethal prospect at his best – he has already been compared, albeit rather unfairly, with Glenn McGrath.
If the notion of a gigantic quick revitalising England’s fortunes has an air of déjà vu about it, it is because, a month ago, fans were hoping that Hampshire’s Chris Tremlett could transform his undoubted talent onto the international stage. But Tremlett, who at 25 should be nearing his peak, has a worrying tendency to lose his rhythm under pressure.
His body language is disconcerting: Tremlett too often lacks aggression while his lumbering fielding exerts all the wrong vibes. In short, he seems devoid of the necessary mental toughness and single-mindedness to transform his highly encouraging county form into the international game. With figures of 1-152 in the CB Series, Tremlett will have been shifted well done the pecking order; will Shane Warne’s presence at Hampshire help to ensure his qualities are not put to waste?
Broad, in stark contrast, is clearly so enthusiastic about the prospect of playing international cricket. Against Pakistan in September he played five ODIs and, though he appeared a little raw, was never overawed. Broad took five wickets and impressed with his attitude and character – only to be left out of the ICC Champions Trophy squad in favour of Sajid Mahmood.
So many players seem to treat international games with ambivalence. Broad, however, relishes the contest; upon being selected, he spoke of being “fully prepared and excited”. He also fits Duncan Fletcher’s idea of being a multi-dimensional cricketer: he possesses a solid technique and many shots, as he showed in scoring a classy 54* for England A against Pakistan last summer. Already, he has publicly talked of targeting the problematic number eight position in the Test team.
That’s the good news. The bad news is he is, it likely to be overlooked for Mahmood in the first final. This would be another disappointing selectorial decision: Broad has all the makings of an international player – a repeatable action, controlled aggression and enthusiasm – and he is patently a better option than both Mahmood and Tremlett for the Caribbean.
Broad is only 20; he has played 25 first-class games and taken 80 wickets at 30, yet already he is talked about as some sort of fast-bowling saviour. Reasons for this extend far beyond nostalgic reminiscing of his father’s heroics down under 20 years ago – when Stuart had just been born.
Broad junior boasts an easy, rhythmical action and has the ability to bowl in the high 80s. This, aided by his 6ft7in frame and increasing accuracy makes him a lethal prospect at his best – he has already been compared, albeit rather unfairly, with Glenn McGrath.
If the notion of a gigantic quick revitalising England’s fortunes has an air of déjà vu about it, it is because, a month ago, fans were hoping that Hampshire’s Chris Tremlett could transform his undoubted talent onto the international stage. But Tremlett, who at 25 should be nearing his peak, has a worrying tendency to lose his rhythm under pressure.
His body language is disconcerting: Tremlett too often lacks aggression while his lumbering fielding exerts all the wrong vibes. In short, he seems devoid of the necessary mental toughness and single-mindedness to transform his highly encouraging county form into the international game. With figures of 1-152 in the CB Series, Tremlett will have been shifted well done the pecking order; will Shane Warne’s presence at Hampshire help to ensure his qualities are not put to waste?
Broad, in stark contrast, is clearly so enthusiastic about the prospect of playing international cricket. Against Pakistan in September he played five ODIs and, though he appeared a little raw, was never overawed. Broad took five wickets and impressed with his attitude and character – only to be left out of the ICC Champions Trophy squad in favour of Sajid Mahmood.
So many players seem to treat international games with ambivalence. Broad, however, relishes the contest; upon being selected, he spoke of being “fully prepared and excited”. He also fits Duncan Fletcher’s idea of being a multi-dimensional cricketer: he possesses a solid technique and many shots, as he showed in scoring a classy 54* for England A against Pakistan last summer. Already, he has publicly talked of targeting the problematic number eight position in the Test team.
That’s the good news. The bad news is he is, it likely to be overlooked for Mahmood in the first final. This would be another disappointing selectorial decision: Broad has all the makings of an international player – a repeatable action, controlled aggression and enthusiasm – and he is patently a better option than both Mahmood and Tremlett for the Caribbean.
Tuesday, 6 February 2007
England beginning to shape up their ODI act
Notoriously, England are at their most dangerous, particularly away from home, when universally written off. While their endeavours in winning consecutive one-dayers to qualify for the CB Series finals are patently nothing in comparison to victories at Bridgetown in ’94 or Melbourne in ’98, they do suggest England can attain World Cup respectability – elusive for 15 years – and progress to the semi-finals.
If England’s win against Australia was emphatic, their 14-run victory over New Zealand came about in spite of palpable limitations. England fought back very creditably against a competent New Zealand side in the latter stages of both innings; but, yet again, they were mediocre in the opening stages of these – and Australia would not allow England to escape.
After 13.3 overs, England reached a paltry 52-3; Mal Loye only averages 19 but his ability to score quick runs was missed. And, when they attempted to defend their 270-7, England were let down by their young bowlers Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood to the extent that New Zealand reached 81-0 off 13 overs. Yet to win ultimately relatively comfortably against a one-day side as well-acquainted with the form of the game as New Zealand despite such faults certainly bodes well for the near future – when England will have Kevin Pietersen (who may even be called up for the finals), James Anderson and Jon Lewis at their disposal.
Where the victory over Australia was particularly satisfying for the triumph of youth – Ed Joyce, Plunkett and, to a lesser extent, Ian Bell and Sajid Mahmood – this was so gratifying because two of England’s experienced players, seemingly broken after a winter of near-relentless maulings, thrived.
Andrew Strauss’ 55 from number four suggested he is at ease batting lower down the order; remarkably, it was his top international score in 18 innings on tour. But, though this innings has almost certainly secured a World Cup berth, one would expect Kevin Pietersen to return for him come the World Cup.
Alternatively, and more adventurously, England could bring Pietersen in for Jamie Dalrymple. Pietersen’s idiosyncratic brand of dominating could be utilised at four, Strauss deployed at five, Andrew Flintoff at six and Collingwood, slightly harshly, at seven. It would be ridiculous for the selectors to think that Collingwood’s 106 meant he could not bat at seven; rather, they should realise that his bowling is currently more reliable than Dalrymple’s, and hence it would be futile to play Dalrymple, despite a few useful lower-order knocks, ahead of a genuine batsman: be it Strauss or, as I would prefer, Loye. (He would open; one of Michael Vaughan or Bell would move down to five.)
Collingwood’s century was a lesson in middle-order ODI batting. Towards the end of the innings, he was able to hit the boundary; but, in the main, his innings revolved around the use of his bottom-hand to steer the ball into gaps for ones and twos. Collingwood’s innings was wonderfully well paced and displayed precisely the sort of coherent thinking their one-day batting is too frequently bereft of. After a terrible start to the one-day tournament, his innings displayed his characteristic mental strength. His bowling, meanwhile, was savvy and subtle; it was telling that, yet again, he was trusted with the ball ahead of Dalrymple (ostensibly the fifth bowler) – and he delivered, bowling his 10 overs for just 46 while dismissing Styris and Vettori.
Andrew Flintoff, after a few games off the boil, returned to near his best; Plunkett displayed mental toughness and skill to take 3-60 after his first four overs had gone for 30, with him bowling a barrage of wides. Yet his stock has rightly risen after several encouraging bowling performances, while he is also an increasingly adept hitter at number nine.
So England, more by luck than judgment, have found themselves in the CB finals. The selectors will soon face tricky calls on both Dalrymple and the increasingly ridiculous Paul Nixon, neither of whom are in England’s best one-day 11. Michael Vaughan, out first ball, would not be either; but his captaincy is consistently so exemplary that he is still able to justify his selection – the upcoming games against Australia provide him with the ideal opportunity to return to form. Whatever their faults, England must be praised for displayed such mental resilience to, somehow, reach the finals – without their best batsman and second best one-day bowler.
If England’s win against Australia was emphatic, their 14-run victory over New Zealand came about in spite of palpable limitations. England fought back very creditably against a competent New Zealand side in the latter stages of both innings; but, yet again, they were mediocre in the opening stages of these – and Australia would not allow England to escape.
After 13.3 overs, England reached a paltry 52-3; Mal Loye only averages 19 but his ability to score quick runs was missed. And, when they attempted to defend their 270-7, England were let down by their young bowlers Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood to the extent that New Zealand reached 81-0 off 13 overs. Yet to win ultimately relatively comfortably against a one-day side as well-acquainted with the form of the game as New Zealand despite such faults certainly bodes well for the near future – when England will have Kevin Pietersen (who may even be called up for the finals), James Anderson and Jon Lewis at their disposal.
Where the victory over Australia was particularly satisfying for the triumph of youth – Ed Joyce, Plunkett and, to a lesser extent, Ian Bell and Sajid Mahmood – this was so gratifying because two of England’s experienced players, seemingly broken after a winter of near-relentless maulings, thrived.
Andrew Strauss’ 55 from number four suggested he is at ease batting lower down the order; remarkably, it was his top international score in 18 innings on tour. But, though this innings has almost certainly secured a World Cup berth, one would expect Kevin Pietersen to return for him come the World Cup.
Alternatively, and more adventurously, England could bring Pietersen in for Jamie Dalrymple. Pietersen’s idiosyncratic brand of dominating could be utilised at four, Strauss deployed at five, Andrew Flintoff at six and Collingwood, slightly harshly, at seven. It would be ridiculous for the selectors to think that Collingwood’s 106 meant he could not bat at seven; rather, they should realise that his bowling is currently more reliable than Dalrymple’s, and hence it would be futile to play Dalrymple, despite a few useful lower-order knocks, ahead of a genuine batsman: be it Strauss or, as I would prefer, Loye. (He would open; one of Michael Vaughan or Bell would move down to five.)
Collingwood’s century was a lesson in middle-order ODI batting. Towards the end of the innings, he was able to hit the boundary; but, in the main, his innings revolved around the use of his bottom-hand to steer the ball into gaps for ones and twos. Collingwood’s innings was wonderfully well paced and displayed precisely the sort of coherent thinking their one-day batting is too frequently bereft of. After a terrible start to the one-day tournament, his innings displayed his characteristic mental strength. His bowling, meanwhile, was savvy and subtle; it was telling that, yet again, he was trusted with the ball ahead of Dalrymple (ostensibly the fifth bowler) – and he delivered, bowling his 10 overs for just 46 while dismissing Styris and Vettori.
Andrew Flintoff, after a few games off the boil, returned to near his best; Plunkett displayed mental toughness and skill to take 3-60 after his first four overs had gone for 30, with him bowling a barrage of wides. Yet his stock has rightly risen after several encouraging bowling performances, while he is also an increasingly adept hitter at number nine.
So England, more by luck than judgment, have found themselves in the CB finals. The selectors will soon face tricky calls on both Dalrymple and the increasingly ridiculous Paul Nixon, neither of whom are in England’s best one-day 11. Michael Vaughan, out first ball, would not be either; but his captaincy is consistently so exemplary that he is still able to justify his selection – the upcoming games against Australia provide him with the ideal opportunity to return to form. Whatever their faults, England must be praised for displayed such mental resilience to, somehow, reach the finals – without their best batsman and second best one-day bowler.
Friday, 2 February 2007
Joyce the tonic to top-order worries
Ed Joyce’s start to international career was tentative indeed; but, in making a fantastic century against Australia, he has probably secured a starting place for the World Cup. The selectors have received much criticism for their continued selection of Joyce, who averaged only 25 in domestic limited-overs games last season and ostensibly appears better-suited to Test cricket. He took eight international innings to hit 50 but this innings, a lesson in judicious limited-overs batting and how to make the most of luck, vindicates their faith.
Though he has played just nine one-day internationals, Joyce has already had stints as an opener, a middle-order accumulator and, now, a second at the top of the innings. He failed in the first two roles, yet, since returning as opener, has displayed the class, resilience and coherent thinking for so long absent from England’s top-order play.
Joyce looked confused during his four-game stint in the middle order, diffident and unsure of the tempo his innings should seek to adopt. The result was three failures and a resilient 47, ended by a rash shot. In returning as opener, Joyce is no longer filling the void of Kevin Pietersen, with whom he shares very few traits, but the similarly compact, fellow left-handed Middlesex opener Andrew Strauss.
Strauss’s batting has been bereft of its usual inherent simplicity in Australia. His success has been built on an unobtrusive technique; yet, in the CB Series, his innings have frequently been ended by injudicious shots. In seven innings, five as opener and two in Joyce’s old position in the middle order, he has invariably scored between 12 and 28. Previously, he had scored four 50s (though only one – a 78 – above 56) in his last six innings, each as opener.
However, his batting currently seems bereft of common sense and his sole hope of a World Cup starting berth would appear to be overtaking the similarly struggling Paul Collingwood as England’s finisher. Collingwood, however, boasts over 100 ODI caps and is a superior fielder, while his nagging medium-pace was crucial in England’s win over the Kiwis at Hobart in Tasmania and could prove useful in the Caribbean.
Joyce, though, will now begin the World Cup as one of England’s few in-form players. He bats responsibly, and is seldom flamboyant, although he is happy to back away to leg to strike the ball through the offside during the Powerplay overs.
Though he is not naturally an aggressor, and more content to play around big-hitters like Mal Loye, Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff, an audacious pull shot when the field was up and a brilliant lofted drive over mid-off later on proved he is sufficiently assertive for limited-overs cricket. Joyce has the potential to be a superb opener for England, with his fusion of pragmatism and aggression, and his ability to adapt his game to suit the demands of his side. Should he extend his form into the World Cup, a Test call-up will be imminent.
The Irishman’s century was the first by an Englishman in ODIs since Marcus Trescothick’s 12th seven months ago. While Joyce patently has much to do before establishing himself as a worthwhile replacement, the 28-year-old’s aptitude for international cricket has now been proved.
Though he has played just nine one-day internationals, Joyce has already had stints as an opener, a middle-order accumulator and, now, a second at the top of the innings. He failed in the first two roles, yet, since returning as opener, has displayed the class, resilience and coherent thinking for so long absent from England’s top-order play.
Joyce looked confused during his four-game stint in the middle order, diffident and unsure of the tempo his innings should seek to adopt. The result was three failures and a resilient 47, ended by a rash shot. In returning as opener, Joyce is no longer filling the void of Kevin Pietersen, with whom he shares very few traits, but the similarly compact, fellow left-handed Middlesex opener Andrew Strauss.
Strauss’s batting has been bereft of its usual inherent simplicity in Australia. His success has been built on an unobtrusive technique; yet, in the CB Series, his innings have frequently been ended by injudicious shots. In seven innings, five as opener and two in Joyce’s old position in the middle order, he has invariably scored between 12 and 28. Previously, he had scored four 50s (though only one – a 78 – above 56) in his last six innings, each as opener.
However, his batting currently seems bereft of common sense and his sole hope of a World Cup starting berth would appear to be overtaking the similarly struggling Paul Collingwood as England’s finisher. Collingwood, however, boasts over 100 ODI caps and is a superior fielder, while his nagging medium-pace was crucial in England’s win over the Kiwis at Hobart in Tasmania and could prove useful in the Caribbean.
Joyce, though, will now begin the World Cup as one of England’s few in-form players. He bats responsibly, and is seldom flamboyant, although he is happy to back away to leg to strike the ball through the offside during the Powerplay overs.
Though he is not naturally an aggressor, and more content to play around big-hitters like Mal Loye, Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff, an audacious pull shot when the field was up and a brilliant lofted drive over mid-off later on proved he is sufficiently assertive for limited-overs cricket. Joyce has the potential to be a superb opener for England, with his fusion of pragmatism and aggression, and his ability to adapt his game to suit the demands of his side. Should he extend his form into the World Cup, a Test call-up will be imminent.
The Irishman’s century was the first by an Englishman in ODIs since Marcus Trescothick’s 12th seven months ago. While Joyce patently has much to do before establishing himself as a worthwhile replacement, the 28-year-old’s aptitude for international cricket has now been proved.
Monday, 29 January 2007
Strauss and Collingwood indicative of a wider malaise
Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood are two resilient cricketers with much international experience. Yet these two players, ostensibly amongst England’s toughest, are both in the midst of huge slumps in form and have found themselves mercilessly exposed by Australia and, lately, New Zealand. Are their problems technical, physical or mental?
Clearly, they are a combination of all three; fatigue of both kinds sets in only when performances have waned.
Strauss went into the Test series in fine form. This perhaps contributed to his incorrect belief that he had to fill Marcus Trescothick’s 2005 role in taking the attack to Australia’s bowlers from the off; hence, he got out to a number of injudicious shots when he should have been looking to build the foundations. Next came a period when he appeared to have found the right balance, and was extremely unlucky with umpiring decisions.
Yet what started out as a mere dip in form has continued apace. The excuses have gone and Strauss’ body language and confused stroke play are those of a man who has lost all faith in the methods which have served him so well. In 15 international innings down under, Strauss has never passed 50. These are abysmal stats for a man who has prided himself on his consistency since emerging so spectacularly three years ago. The only solace is, unlike in the case of Collingwood, his technique has not disintegrated, even if his cricketing brain seems to have done.
The case of Collingwood is even more bewildering. He began phenomenally in Australia; a 96 and a 206 in his first three Test innings seemed to put all doubts over his compatibility at Test level to rest. But the Australian bowlers, thereafter, nullified his scoring shots and uncovered fundamental weaknesses outside off-stump against the quick bowlers, where Collingwood’s studiousness could not hide his vulnerability.
But no one ever doubted his quality in the ODI arena, where he has over 100 caps and has saved England on many an occasion. However, save for a painstaking 43 in the first CB Series game, the Durham player has appeared dejected and bereft of all belief, as he himself has admitted. After his double hundred, an epic vigil of concentration (albeit one in which he was never able to truly dominate), expectations have weighed him down. In his last four games, he has not passed 10. Patently, he, like Strauss, is a man worn down and in need of a break.
That is all well and good. But the World Cup is seven weeks away and the duo are both essential facets of England’s misfiring batting line-up. They are also victims of England’s stubborn refusal to embrace rotation of any sort, leaving players nowhere to hide when their standards slip. England should amend this and give one – or both – a break, even if it means thrusting Ravi Bopara into the firing line. But the reality is, after the relentless beatings both have endured, it seems impossible that both will recover in time for the World Cup.
Clearly, they are a combination of all three; fatigue of both kinds sets in only when performances have waned.
Strauss went into the Test series in fine form. This perhaps contributed to his incorrect belief that he had to fill Marcus Trescothick’s 2005 role in taking the attack to Australia’s bowlers from the off; hence, he got out to a number of injudicious shots when he should have been looking to build the foundations. Next came a period when he appeared to have found the right balance, and was extremely unlucky with umpiring decisions.
Yet what started out as a mere dip in form has continued apace. The excuses have gone and Strauss’ body language and confused stroke play are those of a man who has lost all faith in the methods which have served him so well. In 15 international innings down under, Strauss has never passed 50. These are abysmal stats for a man who has prided himself on his consistency since emerging so spectacularly three years ago. The only solace is, unlike in the case of Collingwood, his technique has not disintegrated, even if his cricketing brain seems to have done.
The case of Collingwood is even more bewildering. He began phenomenally in Australia; a 96 and a 206 in his first three Test innings seemed to put all doubts over his compatibility at Test level to rest. But the Australian bowlers, thereafter, nullified his scoring shots and uncovered fundamental weaknesses outside off-stump against the quick bowlers, where Collingwood’s studiousness could not hide his vulnerability.
But no one ever doubted his quality in the ODI arena, where he has over 100 caps and has saved England on many an occasion. However, save for a painstaking 43 in the first CB Series game, the Durham player has appeared dejected and bereft of all belief, as he himself has admitted. After his double hundred, an epic vigil of concentration (albeit one in which he was never able to truly dominate), expectations have weighed him down. In his last four games, he has not passed 10. Patently, he, like Strauss, is a man worn down and in need of a break.
That is all well and good. But the World Cup is seven weeks away and the duo are both essential facets of England’s misfiring batting line-up. They are also victims of England’s stubborn refusal to embrace rotation of any sort, leaving players nowhere to hide when their standards slip. England should amend this and give one – or both – a break, even if it means thrusting Ravi Bopara into the firing line. But the reality is, after the relentless beatings both have endured, it seems impossible that both will recover in time for the World Cup.
Saturday, 20 January 2007
Turning the tide?
There has been nothing but doom and gloom surrounding the England team and their woeful tour of Australia, until now. Following what from a distance appears another abject and downright pathetic performance against the hosts, England can actually take heart from two major positives, their best opening wicket stand on tour so far, between the dominant Mal Loye and out of form Andrew Strauss and the re-emergence of James Anderson as a dangerous One Day International bowler.
It may just be that England emerge from this tour in a better position to challenge for the World Cup. Even suggesting that their could be a challenge may sound laughable at present, but slowly England are realising what makes a successful One Day International side. Perhaps they are learning from the masters, Australia.
Prior to Michael Vaughan’s latest injury David Graveney stated that he was happy with a top three of Strauss, Vaughan and Bell. Distressed does not come close to describing how this made me feel. Fortunately though, Vaughan’s misfortune has been England’s fortune. Forced to give Mal Loye a shot in at least three games now, England’s selectors have found an answer to part of the puzzle. Marcus Trescothick has been England’s dominant one day top order batsman since the retirement of Nick Knight. Rather than replacing Trescothick with a belligerent like for like though, the selectors chose to open with Ian Bell and promoted Andrew Flintoff to three, which encouraged slow starts and prevented Freddie from doing what he does best, finish games.
Having realised that they were wasting Flintoff at three, England then failed to answer the problem by opening with Michael Vaughan, who one suspects would not even be in the side if it were not for the absence of Trescothick, the recent demoralising sequence of defeats and the current lack of inspired and intelligent leadership. Now, we must not get carried away. Loye scored just 36. But it was a speedy and aggressive 36, scored at a run a ball rate.
When Pietersen is restored to the side for the World Cup, with Flintoff lurking below, England will have three attacking players spread throughout their order, who sides around the world will fear.
Currently lacking Pietersen though, England are still desperately short of fire power. Ed Joyce is a classy player, full of talent, but his mental state on this tour appears frail and if one is brutally honest he is not the type of player England currently need to replace a power player like Pietersen. Joyce is a nudger and nurdler, not a player who will take a game by the scruff of its neck. Joyce’s Middlesex colleague Owais Shah would have been the closest England have to a replacement for Pietersen, but he is seemingly out of Fletcher’s good books. Joyce is more in the mould of a Strauss, a Bell, a Collingwood. England already have too many of those unfortunately.
Ravi Bopara will now surely get a chance in the rest of this series to stake his claim for a middle order slot in England’s one day team. However, ultimately there will not be room for more than three of Vaughan, Strauss, Bell, Joyce, Bopara and Collingwood in England’s one day side. Long term, the likely occupants are Strauss, Bell and Bopara. For now though, few will place Bopara above Collingwood, who has though shown a worrying deterioration in form at precisely the wrong time. It is also likely that Michael Vaughan’s leadership skills will get him the nod at the World Cup if fit, although as I have stated before I believe he should be concentrating on Test cricket afterwards, in order to prolong his career.
This could leave Strauss and Bell fighting it out for the number three/four position in England’s middle order. Strauss has occupied the role before, whilst Bell has shown that he can be a success in that middle order position, especially against spin.
Long term, many believe that Strauss should be the captain and no disagreements will be found here. He has shown time and again that he raises his game when captain and England have made a mistake in returning to Andrew Flintoff, rather than turning to his namesake, Strauss. Flintoff, in contrast to Strauss seems to wilt somewhat under the burden of captaincy and freed of responsibility he gave his best performance by far on tour so far against New Zealand.
In the wicket keeping department it appears as though the management are going to stick with Paul Nixon through until the summer, when one hopes that one of Matt Prior, Steven Davies or James Foster will get the gloves. Nixon, reminiscent of Geraint Jones with his constant verbals and tendency to average fifteen, is not the gloveman that Chris Read undoubtedly is, but his experience makes him a better option with the bat and England are now in need of quick fixes. Many though would still prefer to give one of the above trio the gloves.
One further point which is worthy of consideration is where Kevin Pietersen bats. When you look around the greatest sides in the world the best player often bats at three, just ask Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting. Pietersen, undoubtedly England’s best batsman, needs to bat at three in most situations. Flexibility is though a key string to a sides bow in one day cricket and Pietersen and the number four should of course be interchangeable in certain situations. With Pietersen batting at three though, England will look a far more threatening side during the power plays and it also gives him the chance to bat for the optimum amount of time. With Flintoff lurking down the order at five/six (interchangeable of course!) England would still have a power player to attack the final ten to fifteen overs. Surely it makes sense!
Earlier it was stated that England could learn from Australia and they can and should. For if England were to line up as so, their side would bear striking similarities to that of Australia and surely that is no bad thing:
Trescothick/Loye - Gilchrist (wk)
Strauss/Vaughan (c) - Hayden/Katich
Pietersen - Ponting (c)
Bell/Strauss - Clarke
Flintoff - Symonds
Collingwood/Bopara - Hussey
Dalrymple - White
Prior/Davies (wk) - Watson/Hogg/Johnson/Clark
Tremlett - Lee
Panesar/Broad - Bracken
Anderson - McGrath
Chris Pallett
It may just be that England emerge from this tour in a better position to challenge for the World Cup. Even suggesting that their could be a challenge may sound laughable at present, but slowly England are realising what makes a successful One Day International side. Perhaps they are learning from the masters, Australia.
Prior to Michael Vaughan’s latest injury David Graveney stated that he was happy with a top three of Strauss, Vaughan and Bell. Distressed does not come close to describing how this made me feel. Fortunately though, Vaughan’s misfortune has been England’s fortune. Forced to give Mal Loye a shot in at least three games now, England’s selectors have found an answer to part of the puzzle. Marcus Trescothick has been England’s dominant one day top order batsman since the retirement of Nick Knight. Rather than replacing Trescothick with a belligerent like for like though, the selectors chose to open with Ian Bell and promoted Andrew Flintoff to three, which encouraged slow starts and prevented Freddie from doing what he does best, finish games.
Having realised that they were wasting Flintoff at three, England then failed to answer the problem by opening with Michael Vaughan, who one suspects would not even be in the side if it were not for the absence of Trescothick, the recent demoralising sequence of defeats and the current lack of inspired and intelligent leadership. Now, we must not get carried away. Loye scored just 36. But it was a speedy and aggressive 36, scored at a run a ball rate.
When Pietersen is restored to the side for the World Cup, with Flintoff lurking below, England will have three attacking players spread throughout their order, who sides around the world will fear.
Currently lacking Pietersen though, England are still desperately short of fire power. Ed Joyce is a classy player, full of talent, but his mental state on this tour appears frail and if one is brutally honest he is not the type of player England currently need to replace a power player like Pietersen. Joyce is a nudger and nurdler, not a player who will take a game by the scruff of its neck. Joyce’s Middlesex colleague Owais Shah would have been the closest England have to a replacement for Pietersen, but he is seemingly out of Fletcher’s good books. Joyce is more in the mould of a Strauss, a Bell, a Collingwood. England already have too many of those unfortunately.
Ravi Bopara will now surely get a chance in the rest of this series to stake his claim for a middle order slot in England’s one day team. However, ultimately there will not be room for more than three of Vaughan, Strauss, Bell, Joyce, Bopara and Collingwood in England’s one day side. Long term, the likely occupants are Strauss, Bell and Bopara. For now though, few will place Bopara above Collingwood, who has though shown a worrying deterioration in form at precisely the wrong time. It is also likely that Michael Vaughan’s leadership skills will get him the nod at the World Cup if fit, although as I have stated before I believe he should be concentrating on Test cricket afterwards, in order to prolong his career.
This could leave Strauss and Bell fighting it out for the number three/four position in England’s middle order. Strauss has occupied the role before, whilst Bell has shown that he can be a success in that middle order position, especially against spin.
Long term, many believe that Strauss should be the captain and no disagreements will be found here. He has shown time and again that he raises his game when captain and England have made a mistake in returning to Andrew Flintoff, rather than turning to his namesake, Strauss. Flintoff, in contrast to Strauss seems to wilt somewhat under the burden of captaincy and freed of responsibility he gave his best performance by far on tour so far against New Zealand.
In the wicket keeping department it appears as though the management are going to stick with Paul Nixon through until the summer, when one hopes that one of Matt Prior, Steven Davies or James Foster will get the gloves. Nixon, reminiscent of Geraint Jones with his constant verbals and tendency to average fifteen, is not the gloveman that Chris Read undoubtedly is, but his experience makes him a better option with the bat and England are now in need of quick fixes. Many though would still prefer to give one of the above trio the gloves.
One further point which is worthy of consideration is where Kevin Pietersen bats. When you look around the greatest sides in the world the best player often bats at three, just ask Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting. Pietersen, undoubtedly England’s best batsman, needs to bat at three in most situations. Flexibility is though a key string to a sides bow in one day cricket and Pietersen and the number four should of course be interchangeable in certain situations. With Pietersen batting at three though, England will look a far more threatening side during the power plays and it also gives him the chance to bat for the optimum amount of time. With Flintoff lurking down the order at five/six (interchangeable of course!) England would still have a power player to attack the final ten to fifteen overs. Surely it makes sense!
Earlier it was stated that England could learn from Australia and they can and should. For if England were to line up as so, their side would bear striking similarities to that of Australia and surely that is no bad thing:
Trescothick/Loye - Gilchrist (wk)
Strauss/Vaughan (c) - Hayden/Katich
Pietersen - Ponting (c)
Bell/Strauss - Clarke
Flintoff - Symonds
Collingwood/Bopara - Hussey
Dalrymple - White
Prior/Davies (wk) - Watson/Hogg/Johnson/Clark
Tremlett - Lee
Panesar/Broad - Bracken
Anderson - McGrath
Chris Pallett
Friday, 19 January 2007
Loye's cameo accentuates Joyce's timidity
Ed Joyce has an outstanding first-class average – 47 – but he does not appear fully at ease in international cricket. The stylish left-hander has been nervous and unable to impose himself over his brief ODI career. The World Cup is looming, and the explosive cameo of Mal Loye may now mean Joyce is quietly ushered out of his adopted country’s World Cup plans.
In six international innings to date (one in Twenty20, five in ODIs), Joyce has scored just 42 runs, failing to pass 13 in any innings. Moreover, he has not been particularly unlucky or the victim of brilliant deliveries. He has just appeared tentative and unsure of himself – and the opposition have ruthlessly exploited this.
The Irishman is a stylish accumulator in the Graham Thorpe mould. But there appears one fundamental difference – unlike Thorpe, there are doubts over Joyce’s mental strength. And, while people may point to Ian Bell initially being afflicted by similar self-doubt, Joyce is 28 and, in all probability, will be given just one chance to prove himself in international cricket.
He is stylistically better suited to Test cricket but, unless he can allay fears that he is mentally weak, may never get his chance. Competition for England batting places – in both forms of the game – is fierce. Indeed, many felt Joyce should not have been named in the original one-day party, and would have preferred Middlesex team-mate Owais Shah, a fiery and explosive batsman who greatly impressed on Test debut, or the idiosyncratic and highly-effective opener Mal Loye.
The latter has finally received his chance and, in scoring a run-a-ball 36 topped by a superlative slog-sweep six off Brett Lee, showed his method can prove successful in the short-term; and, unlike Joyce, he never seemed to doubt himself.
Loye dared to play his natural game, knowing he has been selected to provide early-innings impetus. One of Joyce’s problems may be that is he unsure of his task: he is an accumulator of runs, but so are Ian Bell, Michael Vaughan and Andrew Strauss. To compound his uncertainty, he is batting in the position normally occupied by Kevin Pietersen.
If Vaughan returns for the next game, it should be at the expense of Joyce, rather than Loye. The Lancastrian must be allowed a run opening the batting – he did enough to suggest he can thrive there in the World Cup, and England must patently find a better way to utilise the Powerplays. Strauss, Vaughan and Bell, in that order, should occupy the other top four positions until Pietersen returns. Ultimately, England should select only the two that perform best in the CB Series for the World Cup, provided Loye fares well in the remaining games. Joyce, meanwhile, can now expect to be dropped, and must seek to approach future innings with less timidity.
In six international innings to date (one in Twenty20, five in ODIs), Joyce has scored just 42 runs, failing to pass 13 in any innings. Moreover, he has not been particularly unlucky or the victim of brilliant deliveries. He has just appeared tentative and unsure of himself – and the opposition have ruthlessly exploited this.
The Irishman is a stylish accumulator in the Graham Thorpe mould. But there appears one fundamental difference – unlike Thorpe, there are doubts over Joyce’s mental strength. And, while people may point to Ian Bell initially being afflicted by similar self-doubt, Joyce is 28 and, in all probability, will be given just one chance to prove himself in international cricket.
He is stylistically better suited to Test cricket but, unless he can allay fears that he is mentally weak, may never get his chance. Competition for England batting places – in both forms of the game – is fierce. Indeed, many felt Joyce should not have been named in the original one-day party, and would have preferred Middlesex team-mate Owais Shah, a fiery and explosive batsman who greatly impressed on Test debut, or the idiosyncratic and highly-effective opener Mal Loye.
The latter has finally received his chance and, in scoring a run-a-ball 36 topped by a superlative slog-sweep six off Brett Lee, showed his method can prove successful in the short-term; and, unlike Joyce, he never seemed to doubt himself.
Loye dared to play his natural game, knowing he has been selected to provide early-innings impetus. One of Joyce’s problems may be that is he unsure of his task: he is an accumulator of runs, but so are Ian Bell, Michael Vaughan and Andrew Strauss. To compound his uncertainty, he is batting in the position normally occupied by Kevin Pietersen.
If Vaughan returns for the next game, it should be at the expense of Joyce, rather than Loye. The Lancastrian must be allowed a run opening the batting – he did enough to suggest he can thrive there in the World Cup, and England must patently find a better way to utilise the Powerplays. Strauss, Vaughan and Bell, in that order, should occupy the other top four positions until Pietersen returns. Ultimately, England should select only the two that perform best in the CB Series for the World Cup, provided Loye fares well in the remaining games. Joyce, meanwhile, can now expect to be dropped, and must seek to approach future innings with less timidity.
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
Why have England only selected Loye now?
So England have finally selected Mal Loye. Cries for his selection have risen as England’s performances have worsened. But it is worth reflecting on why the English management so patently do not rate him.
In recent years, Loye has certainly been the finest English exponent of limited-overs batting in county cricket, batting fearlessly and often unorthodoxly (as with his idiosyncratic sweep off opening bowlers), while also retaining the basis of the technique that has ensured a fruitful first-class career; he has averaged over 40 and very nearly won a Test cap in 1998.
Yet, in spite of this, England have, until it was unavoidable, avoided selecting him. Even now, there are whispers that either Ravi Bopara or Ed Joyce may open the batting alongside Andrew Strauss, which really would touch the confines of lunacy.
Vikram Solanki and Matt Prior, both players lacking Loye’s inventiveness and consistency, have both been preferred to Loye in one-dayers over the past year. England have also ‘experimented’ by opening the batting with Ian Bell. All this while ignoring the option advocated by so many county fans.
The answer to the selectors’ reluctance surely lies in both his age – he is now 34 – and their fears over whether his unorthodoxy would thrive at international level; did they view him as merely Ali Brown – a belligerent county batsman but with a ODI average of just 22 – Mark 2?
And it could even be argued that, because of his unique style, the selectors thought Loye’s impact would be greatest in the World Cup if largely an unknown quantity. But, as county bowlers grow more accustomed to his oddities as a one-day batsman, his effect has only increased. It remains ludicrous to think England opted to open with Bell and bat Flintoff at three in the Champions Trophy when their batting line-up could have remained the same has they only replaced Marcus Trescothick with Loye. While one-day caps were handed out so haphazardly, where was the harm in giving the Lancashire player his chance?
Tuesday, 16 January 2007
Loye cannot be ignored
In the absence of Kevin Pietersen, England edged to victory against New Zealand. Yet only Andrew Flintoff was able to play in an authoritative manner; despite needing only four an over, the run rate rose to almost six by the time Flintoff played his belligerent, yet mature, innings.
The selection of Ed Joyce to replace Pietersen was puzzling in that he seems incapable of being genuinely assertive; and, with Vaughan, Strauss and Bell already making up the top three, they are already over-reliant on Flintoff to raise the tempo. The selection of Joyce is puzzling in that he is patently a better player in first-class, rather than one-day, cricket.
Is this another example of England blooding potential Test players in the one-day game? Even if they genuinely view him as a potential star in ODIs, surely they must acknowledge that his only role will be replacing, rather than complementing, the top three? Their logic in playing him appears to be to give him sufficient experience to be the first reserve in the World Cup. But, with Michael Vaughan’s hamstring injury, England will have to play novice Ravi Bopara, who bats at five for Essex, at four, and move Joyce, who has appeared nervous in averaging just 9 in his four ODI innings to date, back up to his original ODI position as opener. Bewildering, indeed.
Fortunately, England have a get-out-of jail free card at hand. They can select Mal Loye, second only to Marcus Trescothick of Englishmen in his proven ability to get the innings off to a good start and open the batting with him. Loye is 34, but he is in the form of his life and is a necessity for the World Cup, bringing the one-day experience England so palpably lack. And, which Englishman doesn’t shudder at the thought of a Strauss, Joyce, Bell and Bopara top four?
Alas, Australia is a long way away, and it would be a logistical impossibility for him to fly out there and play in England’s next game on Friday. That would be a great shame, but, fortunately, we need not worry. Loye is already playing domestic cricket for Auckland; he has played two one-dayers for them scoring 90 and, just today, a run-a-ball 34. And, intriguingly, that match-winning 90, scored from just 79 balls, came at number four. So, if England are adamant Joyce must open, they could still slot Loye in at number four, where he would at least play in a similar manner to Pietersen and allow the men around him to bat as they do when he is playing.
Monday, 8 January 2007
Can Vaughan help England avoid total humiliation?
England notoriously fare far worse in one-day cricket than in the Test arena. So, after their ignominious whitewash, what can we expect in the VB Series? England play eight games, plus a Twenty20 encounter with Australia. Their most pressing task is to avoid becoming the first English touring side in history not to win a single game. While they should certainly win at least one of their four matches with New Zealand, there is a palpable chance that they will not win even once against Australian opposition.
Michael Vaughan has been reappointed the skipper. While some have criticised the decision for bearing resemblance to the loyalty so prevalent in England’s negative team selection for the Ashes, Vaughan is an excellent skipper who England will need in the VB Series and World Cup. His record in ODI cricket is admittedly mediocre, but, with Marcus Trescothick absent, England are in need of an experienced opener. As with Andrew Flintoff, we are far from certain about his fitness but, from afar, it is hard to argue with the reinstatement of Vaughan to the role of captaincy.
England’s top six will remain the same as in the Ashes, apart from Vaughan replacing Alastair Cook, but their bottom five will be very different. Jamie Dalrymple, a feisty cricketer who has done well to date in ODIs, should offer some lower-order stability at number seven.
Chris Read kept superbly in the last two Tests but, given that he has only once passed four in his last eight international innings, I would advocate the selection of 36-year-old Paul Nixon. Nixon is an idiosyncratic and highly effective lower order batsman in ODIs, particularly adept at playing the reverse sweep, and appears a good interim option.
The departures of Messrs Harmison and Hoggard mean England’s seam bowling will have a completely different look to it. They will surely not risk Sajid Mahmood, whose lack of control is even more significant in the shorter format, while Liam Plunkett, whose one-day economy rate is almost 6, is not yet good enough. The selectors must regret selecting both ahead of Stuart Broad.
James Anderson, who is a better bowler in ODIs, deserves to keep his place in the side as the opening bowler. Jon Lewis has hardly put a foot wrong in recent months and can now prove his effectiveness on foreign shores. The uncharacteristic slow tracks expected in the Caribbean should also suit him.
The final spot, then, looks to be between Monty Panesar and Chris Tremlett. Panesar could be very effective in the West Indies, while Tremlett is an exciting prospect who generates copious amounts of bounce with his height and pace.
The expectations of England’s performances have seldom been lower. If Vaughan is indeed fully fit, they may just cause the odd surprise, though reaching the VB Series final is probably beyond them, unless Pietersen and Flintoff hit top form simultaneously.
Michael Vaughan has been reappointed the skipper. While some have criticised the decision for bearing resemblance to the loyalty so prevalent in England’s negative team selection for the Ashes, Vaughan is an excellent skipper who England will need in the VB Series and World Cup. His record in ODI cricket is admittedly mediocre, but, with Marcus Trescothick absent, England are in need of an experienced opener. As with Andrew Flintoff, we are far from certain about his fitness but, from afar, it is hard to argue with the reinstatement of Vaughan to the role of captaincy.
England’s top six will remain the same as in the Ashes, apart from Vaughan replacing Alastair Cook, but their bottom five will be very different. Jamie Dalrymple, a feisty cricketer who has done well to date in ODIs, should offer some lower-order stability at number seven.
Chris Read kept superbly in the last two Tests but, given that he has only once passed four in his last eight international innings, I would advocate the selection of 36-year-old Paul Nixon. Nixon is an idiosyncratic and highly effective lower order batsman in ODIs, particularly adept at playing the reverse sweep, and appears a good interim option.
The departures of Messrs Harmison and Hoggard mean England’s seam bowling will have a completely different look to it. They will surely not risk Sajid Mahmood, whose lack of control is even more significant in the shorter format, while Liam Plunkett, whose one-day economy rate is almost 6, is not yet good enough. The selectors must regret selecting both ahead of Stuart Broad.
James Anderson, who is a better bowler in ODIs, deserves to keep his place in the side as the opening bowler. Jon Lewis has hardly put a foot wrong in recent months and can now prove his effectiveness on foreign shores. The uncharacteristic slow tracks expected in the Caribbean should also suit him.
The final spot, then, looks to be between Monty Panesar and Chris Tremlett. Panesar could be very effective in the West Indies, while Tremlett is an exciting prospect who generates copious amounts of bounce with his height and pace.
The expectations of England’s performances have seldom been lower. If Vaughan is indeed fully fit, they may just cause the odd surprise, though reaching the VB Series final is probably beyond them, unless Pietersen and Flintoff hit top form simultaneously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)