The working relationship between Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores has been the subject of speculation for some time. Now, however, after a winter in which England have stumbled from one humiliation to the next, rumours suggest it has reached breaking point. Some have even suggested that Pietersen will put it to English cricket’s supremos: him or me.
It is not hard to gauge who is of more value to English cricket. Pietersen is, alongside Andrew Flintoff, the only realistic contender for a place in a World XI in either form of the game. He has shown himself to be a supreme batsman, as well as a fantastic professional, driven by a desire for self-improvement. It is striking that, whilst he has featured intermittently in the gossip columns, in almost four years in the spotlight no tabloid hack has uncovered any story of excess, of the kind Flintoff has been tainted with.
Then there is Moores. He has lost four Test series out of seven, including two at home after England had been unbeaten between 2001 and 2007. Being less obstinate and downright rude than his predecessor Duncan Fletcher may have helped a little with the media’s perception of him, but he has patently failed to impress so far. He is uninspiring in his methods, and has been criticised for aiming to improve fitness over skill levels. And in team selection and tactics he has been distinctly underwhelming, displaying excess loyalty and, especially in the one-day game, a worrying lack of innovation. He blusters the same old platitudes about the importance of keeping faith in players but tangible progress is rather more difficult to detect.
It may be harsh, but ultimately Moores owes his appointment as England coach to Mushtaq Ahmed more than anyone else. Is he the man to lead England to an Ashes victory next summer? Can he conjure up plans to rival those of Fletcher’s? Many are less-than-certain. And crucially Pietersen, whose relationship with Moores was a concern even before he became captain, appears one of them.
It would be almost unprecedented for a captain to precipitate the coach’s exit. And certainly it would provoke major worries about Pietersen’s power, and resentment if he is seen as thinking he knows all the answers.
But England have underperformed for too long, yet they show few signs of changing course, fumbling along with the same players and tactics out of misguided loyalty. Something radical – remember it is three years since England beat a side other than New Zealand or West Indies – may just be the best course. Carrying on with Moores, when coaches of the calibre of Tom Moody lurk, would smack of inertia. As Pietersen believes, who dares wins; if Hugh Morris and co chose Moores over Pietersen the ambition of English cricket would be in serious jeopardy. Whether England stick or twist is a decision that could define their fortunes in 2009.
Showing posts with label Duncan Fletcher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duncan Fletcher. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 January 2009
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Sting in the tail
England were beaten by 189 runs in the first Test. After losing their sixth wicket, New Zealand scored 185 runs more than England in the game. England’s loss was not just the result of this, clearly: negativity and a total lack of assertion amongst the batsmen and a lack of incision from three-quarters of the bowling attack are equally significant reasons. Nonetheless, why is England’s tail still so inadequate?
The infamous defeat to New Zealand at The Oval in August 1999, when England’s bottom three compromised a Test match number 10 (Andy Caddick), two 11s (Messrs Mullaly and Tufnell) and a number 12 (Ed Giddings) seemingly signalled the end of the ‘six out, all out’ days. Duncan Fletcher’s reign began with the next Test and he placed tremendous influence on developing a tail of tenacity and technique, who would cling dearly onto their wickets.
His policy was a considerable success. Ashley Giles developed into a very good number eight, while others made the odd vital contribution bashing (Steve Harmison and Simon Jones) or blocking (Matthew Hoggard).
Now England’s tail, once more, consistently falls abjectly. Hoggard’s batting has regressed, with his use as a nightwatchman increasingly absurd. Harmison has had moments when his batting appeared set to make good progress, but even fluky 15s are increasingly rare. Monty Panesar plays the odd delightful stroke but a Test average of under 7 (about the same as Hoggard’s) is frankly hopeless. That leaves Ryan Sidebottom who, as in everything he does, has been wholehearted and single-minded in his quest to fill England’s berth at number eight. His defence was admirable in Sri Lanka, but a first-class average of 12 – less than that of Stuart Clark, 11 in Australia’s last Test - shows he is probably ultimately just a willing number ten.
If England are going to improve they clearly need to squeeze every run out of their tail. Batting coach Andy Flower may be partly at fault because, as Glenn McGrath showed, even walking wickets can improve to the point of playing a part in invaluable partnerships, Chris Martin excepted. Given all the attack, except Sidebottom, are failing to deliver with the ball either – England have not taken 20 wickets in their last seven Tests - there would be considerable logic merit in selecting men like Stuart Broad as Graeme Swann, who could hardly bowl worse and would add much-needed sturdiness to the lower-order. It would be a largely defensive move, yes, but pragmatism is needed if England are to get out of their rut.
The infamous defeat to New Zealand at The Oval in August 1999, when England’s bottom three compromised a Test match number 10 (Andy Caddick), two 11s (Messrs Mullaly and Tufnell) and a number 12 (Ed Giddings) seemingly signalled the end of the ‘six out, all out’ days. Duncan Fletcher’s reign began with the next Test and he placed tremendous influence on developing a tail of tenacity and technique, who would cling dearly onto their wickets.
His policy was a considerable success. Ashley Giles developed into a very good number eight, while others made the odd vital contribution bashing (Steve Harmison and Simon Jones) or blocking (Matthew Hoggard).
Now England’s tail, once more, consistently falls abjectly. Hoggard’s batting has regressed, with his use as a nightwatchman increasingly absurd. Harmison has had moments when his batting appeared set to make good progress, but even fluky 15s are increasingly rare. Monty Panesar plays the odd delightful stroke but a Test average of under 7 (about the same as Hoggard’s) is frankly hopeless. That leaves Ryan Sidebottom who, as in everything he does, has been wholehearted and single-minded in his quest to fill England’s berth at number eight. His defence was admirable in Sri Lanka, but a first-class average of 12 – less than that of Stuart Clark, 11 in Australia’s last Test - shows he is probably ultimately just a willing number ten.
If England are going to improve they clearly need to squeeze every run out of their tail. Batting coach Andy Flower may be partly at fault because, as Glenn McGrath showed, even walking wickets can improve to the point of playing a part in invaluable partnerships, Chris Martin excepted. Given all the attack, except Sidebottom, are failing to deliver with the ball either – England have not taken 20 wickets in their last seven Tests - there would be considerable logic merit in selecting men like Stuart Broad as Graeme Swann, who could hardly bowl worse and would add much-needed sturdiness to the lower-order. It would be a largely defensive move, yes, but pragmatism is needed if England are to get out of their rut.
Tuesday, 25 September 2007
The Best Number 10 in Wales: A Tribute to ‘Crofty’
Ask any Welshman the following question, “Who’s the best number 10 in Wales?” and the almost inevitable response will be “Stephen Jones” or possibly “James Hook”. This would be, of course, under the direct assumption that you were referring to rugby union, the national obsession in Wales, and the position of outside half with its accompanying number 10 shirt.
Ask a Glamorgan diehard such as myself, and there is only one answer - “Robert Croft” – an off spinning hero of county and country through good times and bad, the shirt number being adopted by Crofty himself in tribute to the legendary names of the past who have worn the number 10 jersey in the red of Wales. Indeed, Welsh folk hero Max Boyce once sang about a mythical outside half factory in the West Wales valleys from which Crofty hails and still lives.
Crofty’s recent achievement of passing 1,000 first class wickets is a notable one in the modern game, especially now with only 16 Championship games a season. When he achieved this landmark he became the first Welshman to do so alongside 10,000 first class runs, and that is why he is worthy of this amongst many tributes.
Ask a Glamorgan diehard such as myself, and there is only one answer - “Robert Croft” – an off spinning hero of county and country through good times and bad, the shirt number being adopted by Crofty himself in tribute to the legendary names of the past who have worn the number 10 jersey in the red of Wales. Indeed, Welsh folk hero Max Boyce once sang about a mythical outside half factory in the West Wales valleys from which Crofty hails and still lives.
Crofty’s recent achievement of passing 1,000 first class wickets is a notable one in the modern game, especially now with only 16 Championship games a season. When he achieved this landmark he became the first Welshman to do so alongside 10,000 first class runs, and that is why he is worthy of this amongst many tributes.
.
Back where he started?
Crofty’s debut in 1989 was in a very different looking county game, a game of 3 day matches, a game of Gooch and Botham. 19 seasons on and Croft may wonder what has changed at Glamorgan, rock bottom of the Championship, then as now, and a team of talented youngsters making their way in the game but struggling to compete with the seasoned pros of the county circuit, ditto.
Crofty’s debut in 1989 was in a very different looking county game, a game of 3 day matches, a game of Gooch and Botham. 19 seasons on and Croft may wonder what has changed at Glamorgan, rock bottom of the Championship, then as now, and a team of talented youngsters making their way in the game but struggling to compete with the seasoned pros of the county circuit, ditto.
Robert Croft in bowling action - the first Welshman to pass 10,000 first class runs and 1,000 wickets
This, however, fails to take into account the period in between. Crofty led the singing on the Canterbury balcony in 1993 as a Viv Richards inspired Glamorgan clinched their first Sunday League triumph. The success was repeated in 2002 and 2004, the latter under Croft’s captaincy.
Croft’s all round ability was also a key element in the Welsh county’s Championship triumph of 1997, only the third time that the pennant had crossed over the Severn Bridge. 54 wickets in that season averaging just over 23 supported the wonderful opening pair of Waqar and Steve Watkin, and in the title clinching game at Taunton, Crofty attacked with the bat, hitting a rapid 86 in failing September light.
An all round performer
Croft’s 1,000 first class wickets have been well documented elsewhere statistically. Briefly, he’s the ninth person to represent Glamorgan to achieve this and only Andrew Caddick amongst current county cricketers can also claim 1,000 victims.
Andy Caddick bowls to Robert Croft at St Helen's, Swansea
- Crofty's favourite ground
He’s the first Welshman to achieve the double of 10,000 runs and 1,000 wickets. Make no bones about it, Croft at his best is a genuine all rounder. In his prime he batted at 6 in the championship side and has enjoyed a highly successful period during this decade as a pinch hitting opener in white ball cricket.
During the recent 2007 season he once again passed 500 runs and 50 wickets, and provided some much needed stability to troubled Glamorgan. Croft’s century versus Nottinghamshire at his beloved Swansea in June was a major factor in the season’s solitary Championship win.
Critics point to a poor career bowling average of just over 37, and the statistics don’t usually lie. In recent years however, he has taken much of the flak flying at a desperately inexperienced and, at present, inadequate Welsh attack. Fifty overs an innings by him has not been uncommon as seasoned county batsmen have feasted on Glamorgan’s poor fare.
During the recent 2007 season he once again passed 500 runs and 50 wickets, and provided some much needed stability to troubled Glamorgan. Croft’s century versus Nottinghamshire at his beloved Swansea in June was a major factor in the season’s solitary Championship win.
Critics point to a poor career bowling average of just over 37, and the statistics don’t usually lie. In recent years however, he has taken much of the flak flying at a desperately inexperienced and, at present, inadequate Welsh attack. Fifty overs an innings by him has not been uncommon as seasoned county batsmen have feasted on Glamorgan’s poor fare.
A British Lion
Croft’s success at Glamorgan over the years did not go unnoticed by the England selectors. In all he played 21 tests and 50 ODIs, with most recognition gained during David Lloyd’s spell as coach, where he was a regular fixture in the limited overs side of the late nineties.
In tests, Croft gained most success abroad, suitably consistent with his analogy that playing for England was like playing for the British Lions touring rugby side (with Glamorgan equating to Wales of course). His best moments came in New Zealand in 1996/97 (with a test best 5 for 97) and Sri Lanka 2000/01. In home tests, though, he’s best remembered for a match saving partnership with Angus Fraser at Old Trafford versus South Africa in 1998.
In all honesty, he was probably not quite good enough as a test bowler; he looked ordinary against Australia for example, and fell out of favour during the Hussain/Fletcher era. Croft was never bosom pals with Hussain and it seemed that Croft’s refusal to tour India in 2001 (following the 9/11 terrorist atrocities) put him in Fletcher’s bad books (his fellow abstainer was Caddick ironically).
Croft earned himself a recall for the Sri Lanka series in late 2003, but was made to sit out the three tests and carried the drinks whilst the inferior Gareth Batty, rejected by two counties, plied his trade. Touring supporters, amongst them ex Glamorgan stalwart and tour host Peter Walker, were astounded. So it seems was Croft and he called time on his England ambitions.
Captain Croft
Croft took over the Glamorgan captaincy in 2003, taking over when Steve James was forced to retire prematurely as a result of injury. Despite a successful 2004, with a Championship promotion and a Twenty 20 semi final to compliment the National League triumph, his tenure as captain was mixed.
Unfortunately it coincided with the break up of the county’s ‘golden generation’. Partner in crime Tony Cottey, plus Steve Watkin and Hugh Morris had already long vacated the dressing room and joining James in retirement were Adrian Dale, and most crucially Matthew Maynard. Strong characters both, Maynard and Crofty never really saw eye to eye, but hugely respected each other’s talent and value to the Glamorgan cause.
A dire 2005 season in Championship Division One, was followed by one scarcely any better in Division Two. The one day form had tailed off too, and, in September 2006, Croft resigned as skipper as he felt as though he could take the side no further, and some suggested that he had ‘lost’ the dressing room. It hurt a proud Welshman.
.
A one county man through and through, he continued to bat and bowl his heart out for new skipper David Hemp, and performed to consistently high standards during Glamorgan’s even more desperate 2007.
Croft bowls to the classical off spinner's field at Colwyn Bay
Not finished yet
Whilst many of us were ‘ticking off’ the wickets as Robert moved closer to the magical 1,000, it was also with some dread that we saw him achieve it in late season. Rumours circulated that with the landmark Crofty may hang up the boots and commence a much anticipated career in broadcasting. Already a regular summariser on Sky’s county cricket coverage, a fluent Welsh speaker would surely find gainful employment in the BBC Wales Sports’ department.
It was a relief to many of us to hear him say in September;
“I'd like to play for as long as I can and be there when Glamorgan turn their fortunes around” (Source: BBC Sport online).
Crofty passes 38 next May, and, in the opinion of his county wicket keeper Mark Wallace, is bowling better than ever. He’s contracted for next season, and I’ve little doubt that, barring injury, he’ll still be playing at 40. In a very young Glamorgan side, that’s no bad thing.
Nonetheless, we should continue to enjoy him while we can;
"To me, Glamorgan are the best team in world cricket and it means so much to me to represent them," Croft recently told BBC Sport Wales.
Robert Croft is a Welsh number 10 as great as many of those rugby players of days gone by that he so admires.
Let us salute Crofty - a real hero of Glamorgan and Wales.
Saturday, 21 April 2007
Preview: The end of an era
An emotional tie today pits Duncan Fletcher against Brian Lara. It would be hard to wish defeat on either of them. There really isn't much else to say, it is all about Lara and how Fletcher can motivate England. There will be some youngsters on view, but all eyes will be on the one legend on the field. It will be a timely reminder to England that none of their players are near reaching that level yet.
Prediction: West Indies win I'm afraid.
Players to watch: Brian Charles Lara and Michael Vaughan.
Prediction: West Indies win I'm afraid.
Players to watch: Brian Charles Lara and Michael Vaughan.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
When strengths become weaknesses, the time is right to go
And so, after seven and-a-half years in charge of England, Duncan Fletcher has resigned. There is a neat symmetry to his reign, in that it ended as it began, with humiliation against South Africa – England being 2-4 then being thrashed by nine wickets. In between, however, Fletcher has done a terrific job.
He benefited from being an outsider; this helped him judge county players on more than mere statistics. Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan and Paul Colllingwood were all plucked from the county scene despite having mediocre records. Fletcher recognised character was vital in developing international players, and placed great faith in those he recognised it in. Yet, in some cases, he found character where there was insufficient cricketing quality – think of Chris Adams, Anthony McGrath and a plethora of one-day also-rans.
Fletcher was meticulous in preparation and, in alliance with Nasser Hussain, began the tough job of restoring England’s credibility as a Test-match nation. An example of this was the enormous emphasis he placed on bowlers being able to bat, in a bid to end the phenomenon of the English collapse.
In the last Test of the pre-Fletcher era, England infamously had three number 12s – Alan Mullaly, Ed Giddins and Phil Tufnell. Choosing Ashley Giles over Tufnell, as he did with the exception of his first series, was characteristic of Fletcher. He had no qualms opting for the less naturally talented bowler, on the basis that he was also able to contribute with the bat and in the field, and was never liable to becoming difficult on arduous tours away from home. And this policy was vindicated as Giles became, in his understated way, an essential figure in the England run of success in 2004-05, culminating in an assured, Ashes-securing 50 at The Oval.
Yet Giles was also indicative of Fletcher’s stubbornness. The coach invariably stuck by players he rated through periods of lean form – Hussain averaged 12 over 10 Tests in 2000, failing to pass 25 in this time – but, by the end of his regime, this admirable policy of loyalty, so rare in previous England regimes, had turned to something dangerously like blind faith. The decision to turn back to Ashley Giles, a consummate professional but one who averaged over 40 with the ball, ahead of Monty Panesar, who had helped England win two of their last three Tests, for the ‘06/07 Ashes will forever be remembered as the moment when it was clear Fletcher’s time as coach was up.
Key to Fletcher’s success was his adaptability, which enabled him to develop exceptional working relationships with both Vaughan and Hussain, profoundly different characters. Hearing either of them say a bad word on Fletcher is almost as rare as the Zimbabwean smiling; yet there are some players who will be pleased to see him go. Think, especially, of Owais Shah, an outrageously gifted batsman who performed very well on Test debut in India but was never granted a reasonable run in either form of the game.
While the 2005 Ashes result is obviously the standout of Fletcher’s regime, the results he achieved in Asia were equally impressive. He was crucial in developing the forward press, which slowly helped eliminate English fear of the sub-Continent. Under his guise, England recorded back-to-back series wins in 2000/01, previously unimaginable.
This was primarily down to the exploits of stalwarts like Alec Stewart, Mike Atherton, Darren Gough, Andy Caddick and Graham Thorpe - all of whom speak not a bad word about their former coach. The manner in which he reinvigorated experienced players was a hallmark of the early part of his regime. The Surrey left-handers Thorpe and Butcher, for instance, both averaged 14 more after their comebacks – Thorpe in 2000, Butcher in ’01.
Ultimately, the two primary failures of Fletcher’s regime were his inability to coax the relatively young ’05 side onto better things, and his aimless running of the ODI team. He never got to grips with the one-day game, using it to try out potential Test players, like Sajid Mahmood, even when they were patently unsuited to the shorter game, and employed an archaic top-order strategy in the 2007 World Cup.
Why have the 2005 side, with the exception of Kevin Pietersen, Matthew Hoggard and series failures Ian Bell and Collingwood, all declined since the spectacular triumph? Some of it may be down to the English psyche, but Fletcher’s loyalty and the “closed shop” that became the England set-up cannot have helped. While he was unquestionably able to get the best out of gritty performers like Butcher, Thorpe, Hussain and Collingwood, his man-management may come into question for his failure to keep Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison as the best players of the kind in the world for a sustained period.
By the end of his tenure, Fletcher’s strengths had become his weaknesses, and new thinking is now needed. Even if it may not seem so at present, English cricket is in an infinitely better state now than eight years ago, with central contracts introduced and the set-up far more professional and conducive to playing quality cricket.
He benefited from being an outsider; this helped him judge county players on more than mere statistics. Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan and Paul Colllingwood were all plucked from the county scene despite having mediocre records. Fletcher recognised character was vital in developing international players, and placed great faith in those he recognised it in. Yet, in some cases, he found character where there was insufficient cricketing quality – think of Chris Adams, Anthony McGrath and a plethora of one-day also-rans.
Fletcher was meticulous in preparation and, in alliance with Nasser Hussain, began the tough job of restoring England’s credibility as a Test-match nation. An example of this was the enormous emphasis he placed on bowlers being able to bat, in a bid to end the phenomenon of the English collapse.
In the last Test of the pre-Fletcher era, England infamously had three number 12s – Alan Mullaly, Ed Giddins and Phil Tufnell. Choosing Ashley Giles over Tufnell, as he did with the exception of his first series, was characteristic of Fletcher. He had no qualms opting for the less naturally talented bowler, on the basis that he was also able to contribute with the bat and in the field, and was never liable to becoming difficult on arduous tours away from home. And this policy was vindicated as Giles became, in his understated way, an essential figure in the England run of success in 2004-05, culminating in an assured, Ashes-securing 50 at The Oval.
Yet Giles was also indicative of Fletcher’s stubbornness. The coach invariably stuck by players he rated through periods of lean form – Hussain averaged 12 over 10 Tests in 2000, failing to pass 25 in this time – but, by the end of his regime, this admirable policy of loyalty, so rare in previous England regimes, had turned to something dangerously like blind faith. The decision to turn back to Ashley Giles, a consummate professional but one who averaged over 40 with the ball, ahead of Monty Panesar, who had helped England win two of their last three Tests, for the ‘06/07 Ashes will forever be remembered as the moment when it was clear Fletcher’s time as coach was up.
Key to Fletcher’s success was his adaptability, which enabled him to develop exceptional working relationships with both Vaughan and Hussain, profoundly different characters. Hearing either of them say a bad word on Fletcher is almost as rare as the Zimbabwean smiling; yet there are some players who will be pleased to see him go. Think, especially, of Owais Shah, an outrageously gifted batsman who performed very well on Test debut in India but was never granted a reasonable run in either form of the game.
While the 2005 Ashes result is obviously the standout of Fletcher’s regime, the results he achieved in Asia were equally impressive. He was crucial in developing the forward press, which slowly helped eliminate English fear of the sub-Continent. Under his guise, England recorded back-to-back series wins in 2000/01, previously unimaginable.
This was primarily down to the exploits of stalwarts like Alec Stewart, Mike Atherton, Darren Gough, Andy Caddick and Graham Thorpe - all of whom speak not a bad word about their former coach. The manner in which he reinvigorated experienced players was a hallmark of the early part of his regime. The Surrey left-handers Thorpe and Butcher, for instance, both averaged 14 more after their comebacks – Thorpe in 2000, Butcher in ’01.
Ultimately, the two primary failures of Fletcher’s regime were his inability to coax the relatively young ’05 side onto better things, and his aimless running of the ODI team. He never got to grips with the one-day game, using it to try out potential Test players, like Sajid Mahmood, even when they were patently unsuited to the shorter game, and employed an archaic top-order strategy in the 2007 World Cup.
Why have the 2005 side, with the exception of Kevin Pietersen, Matthew Hoggard and series failures Ian Bell and Collingwood, all declined since the spectacular triumph? Some of it may be down to the English psyche, but Fletcher’s loyalty and the “closed shop” that became the England set-up cannot have helped. While he was unquestionably able to get the best out of gritty performers like Butcher, Thorpe, Hussain and Collingwood, his man-management may come into question for his failure to keep Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison as the best players of the kind in the world for a sustained period.
By the end of his tenure, Fletcher’s strengths had become his weaknesses, and new thinking is now needed. Even if it may not seem so at present, English cricket is in an infinitely better state now than eight years ago, with central contracts introduced and the set-up far more professional and conducive to playing quality cricket.
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
What a shambles
This has been, without doubt, the worst winter in the history of English cricket. It is not overstating things to say that both the Ashes and World Cup could not have gone any worse. In nine games against top-eight opposition, England have lost every game; and only once, against Sri Lanka, did they even achieve an honorable defeat.
The one-day defeat to South Africa was utterly pathetic. England’s archaic strategy was exposed for what it is and, frankly, they were shown to be simply not good enough, lacking in fundamental quality and nous.
The fallout from the winter will be big. Duncan Fletcher, who has done a terrific job, will now surely have to go. Sadly, he has not vindicated those who laughed at Geoff Boycott’s suggestion in October that his time was up. Michael Vaughan, clearly, will have to be pushed aside as ODI captain; he is 32, so has no chance of playing in the next World Cup, and will leave behind an awful ODI record.
Andrew Flintoff, meanwhile, now cuts an increasingly forlorn figure; his batting has disintegrated to the point when number six, in both forms of the game looks ridiculous. More worryingly, his joie de vivre and self-confidence look shattered, perhaps irrevocably. Sajid Mahmood’s woefully erratic bowling, coupled with his laissez-faire attitude and the fundamental mistakes still present in his game – like putting his hand over the ball – are testament to England’s selection policy. Too often, players learn their trade on the international stage; meanwhile, individualism is coached out of them, meaning mavericks like a Lasith Malinga or a Sanath Jayasuriya are increasingly rare.
England were unlucky with injuries, but their continually baffling selection certainly didn’t help. Over the last three years, they have moved aimlessly from one one-day humiliation to the next. Though it is true that England could have had a reasonable World Cup side, had players in form two years ago remained fit and firing – Trescothick, Vaughan, Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, G.Jones, Giles, S.Jones, Harmison, Anderson – the selectors are at fault for developing no sort of coherent plan to develop others. Selections were haphazard, with the county circuit’s best English one-day batsman, Mal Loye, continually ignored, and perhaps the second best, Owais Shah, given just three games. They deserve credit for picking Ravi Bopara, and, to some extent, Paul Nixon, but not for “hunches” Bresnan, Ali, Loudon, Yardy et al.
The administrators are culpable too – for allowing a schedule which flogs their players mercilessly into the ground, and sees the World Cup directly after the Ashes tour. Basic flaws, typically, remain unadressed: there are still no Powerplays in domestic one-day cricket. In short, there was no structure in place for one-day success; all hopes were pinned on the freakish CB Series triumph and the idiosyncratic genius of Kevin Pietersen – not coincidentally, a player who learned his trade away from the age group system. England have, remarkably and astoundingly, won just one ODI series out of their last 12. Success in the World Cup would have concealed that. Only after an unmitigated shambles of a winter is there hope for a brighter future.
The one-day defeat to South Africa was utterly pathetic. England’s archaic strategy was exposed for what it is and, frankly, they were shown to be simply not good enough, lacking in fundamental quality and nous.
The fallout from the winter will be big. Duncan Fletcher, who has done a terrific job, will now surely have to go. Sadly, he has not vindicated those who laughed at Geoff Boycott’s suggestion in October that his time was up. Michael Vaughan, clearly, will have to be pushed aside as ODI captain; he is 32, so has no chance of playing in the next World Cup, and will leave behind an awful ODI record.
Andrew Flintoff, meanwhile, now cuts an increasingly forlorn figure; his batting has disintegrated to the point when number six, in both forms of the game looks ridiculous. More worryingly, his joie de vivre and self-confidence look shattered, perhaps irrevocably. Sajid Mahmood’s woefully erratic bowling, coupled with his laissez-faire attitude and the fundamental mistakes still present in his game – like putting his hand over the ball – are testament to England’s selection policy. Too often, players learn their trade on the international stage; meanwhile, individualism is coached out of them, meaning mavericks like a Lasith Malinga or a Sanath Jayasuriya are increasingly rare.
England were unlucky with injuries, but their continually baffling selection certainly didn’t help. Over the last three years, they have moved aimlessly from one one-day humiliation to the next. Though it is true that England could have had a reasonable World Cup side, had players in form two years ago remained fit and firing – Trescothick, Vaughan, Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, G.Jones, Giles, S.Jones, Harmison, Anderson – the selectors are at fault for developing no sort of coherent plan to develop others. Selections were haphazard, with the county circuit’s best English one-day batsman, Mal Loye, continually ignored, and perhaps the second best, Owais Shah, given just three games. They deserve credit for picking Ravi Bopara, and, to some extent, Paul Nixon, but not for “hunches” Bresnan, Ali, Loudon, Yardy et al.
The administrators are culpable too – for allowing a schedule which flogs their players mercilessly into the ground, and sees the World Cup directly after the Ashes tour. Basic flaws, typically, remain unadressed: there are still no Powerplays in domestic one-day cricket. In short, there was no structure in place for one-day success; all hopes were pinned on the freakish CB Series triumph and the idiosyncratic genius of Kevin Pietersen – not coincidentally, a player who learned his trade away from the age group system. England have, remarkably and astoundingly, won just one ODI series out of their last 12. Success in the World Cup would have concealed that. Only after an unmitigated shambles of a winter is there hope for a brighter future.
Monday, 24 April 2006
Same old England
For England, the ODI series in India was yet another disaster in the side’s increasingly laughable attempt to become recognised challengers for next year’s World Cup. And, though injuries provided one much-needed excuse for the shambles, the most worrying aspect of the defeat is that, unlike India’s reserves, the majority of England’s stand-ins looked out of their depth.
Had the side been totally outclassed, we could all have shrugged our shoulders and come out with the usual excuses for the general ineptitude of the one-day team: lack of games and priorities laying so much with the test side. Yet defeats in the first two games were the result not so much of India’s quality, but the brainless batting of the England side. Despite dominating for the majority of both games, England were undone by their lack of nous and a coherent game plan towards the end of each innings.
The rash of slog-sweeps that saw the most facile of run chases turn into a defeat that was ultimately pretty comprehensive, in the first game, epitomised the slapdash showings on display all series. To further compound England’s misery, the chief practitioners of that particular collapse – Pietersen, Flintoff, Collingwood and Jones – are the quartet who will almost certainly be given the job of turning good starts into victories come the World Cup.
If there is anything England can gain from six largely unproductive matches, it is a burgeoning rubbish bag overflowing with players not good enough. This is particularly true of the batting – the facet of the game that truly let England down. An inexperienced brand of seam bowlers generally performed respectably enough.
It was a relief for England that Vikram Solanki finally had a truly abysmal series, rather than his usual showing of rash shots and a useful innings to grant a temporary reprieve. Despite claiming to have matured, Solanki continues to go around in circles and, at 30 and with 49 caps under his belt, Duncan Fletcher surely has the confirmation that the Worcestershire player is an infuriating underachiever.
Owais Shah, the man who performed so well on his test debut, mustered only 11 runs in three innings, yet may still be deserving of another chance, given the consistency of his county efforts and the inventiveness he revealed in the final test. Meanwhile Matt Prior, for reasons no one is quite able to fathom, appeared in all 11 of England’s winter ODIs – and as a specialist batsman in 10 of those. The lack of a half century is a damning indictment of Prior’s lack of quality, while Geraint Jones’ 100 runs in his final two games mean that his wicket-keeping role is secure. Indeed, Chris Read is now a more plausible rival to Jones than Prior.
However, Ian Bell’s performances in the last two games of the season were encouraging and suggest he may be worth another look at in the future. Which leaves Michael Vaughan, who did not participate in his second consecutive ODI tournament. Vaughan’s limited overs record is very poor; his injury record is even worse. It is surely time to ask the skipper to concentrate on test cricket – and, were he not the captain, he would probably have been ditched from the ODI set-up a long time ago.
England’s bowling may have been a mixed bag, but given the fact that Jones, Harmison, Giles and Flintoff (for two games) were all missing, it at least matched expectations.
Ian Blackwell’s tidy left-arm spin went for well under four an over, which would surely have cemented his place, had his batting not appeared so clueless. But Giles’ injury will give him an extended run in the side and, by the law of averages, he must eventually contribute with the bat.
The largely stand-in seam attack each hinted at a bright future, with the bizarre exception of Matthew Hoggard, who seems to lack the mental capacity to play one-day cricket. Yet it must not help being told virtually at the departure lounge that you are in fact wanted for the one-day series. However, ultimately it may come down to a lack of cool when getting smashed.
James Anderson, save for the odd expensive spell, is well on the way to restoring his old reputation, and should play in the World Cup. For all Duncan Fletcher’s obsession with a number nine who can score runs, logic dictates that the berths must be filled be the three best seamers (especially as Jones and Harmison could both score quick runs late on.)
Liam Plunkett showcased his bowling potential – though his 56 against Pakistan looks increasingly like a freak innings, given his woeful showing with a bat in his hand in this series. Still, Plunkett is firmly odds-on for a place in the World Cup squad. Kabir Ali was expensive but did pick up four wickets in one match. The Worcestershire player’s tendency to fall over in his delivery stride compromises his accuracy, and future chances may now only arrive after an injury crisis (so he will certainly play again!) And highly-rated Sajid Mahmood was much the same as Ali but may just have over-taken him in the pecking order.
Assuming Marcus Trescothick returns to the one-day team with better form than when he left it, England’s top seven includes six near-certainties – Trescothick, Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff and Jones – and one definite question mark. Vaughan, Bell and Shah all have claims to the number three berth, as does Ed Joyce, while it is also possible that Alistair Cook will continue his sterling form and demand selection. England should discard Vaughan now, giving them a year to narrow down the four possibles and find two batsmen who can rely on.
Surrey’s Rikki Clarke, newly appointed vice-captain, has long been thought highly of, and could easily find himself in the final 15, albeit only as back-up to Collingwood and Flintoff. He is unlucky that the problem berth – number three – is a position he is alien to.
And the bowling options also look settled. Blackwell will probably pip Giles to the number eight berth, leaving Jones, Harmison and Anderson to complete a line-up of enormous potential. But who to play if a seamer is fit? Plunkett is favourite, though Chris Tremlett – absent through injury – has made an encouraging start, while Sajid Mahmood, if he finally becomes a regular for Lancashire in all forms of the game, could make a late charge for selection.
It is clear success in the one-day series was hardly Duncan Fletcher’s priority; how else to explain the continued selection of two keepers who were not worthy of selection as specialist batsmen?
Despite the disastrous result, England are closer to learning their squad for the World Cup, though it is true those not playing advanced their standing more than those who did. It may also be worth England’s while continuing to rest players in ODIs, at least until the end of the summer; it is the back-ups, rather than the probable starters, who must do most to convince.
Potential Squad for 2007? (starters in bold)
Trescothick
Strauss
Shah
Joyce
Pietersen
Collingwood
Clarke
Flintoff
Jones
Blackwell
Giles
Harmison
Jones
Anderson
Plunkett
Had the side been totally outclassed, we could all have shrugged our shoulders and come out with the usual excuses for the general ineptitude of the one-day team: lack of games and priorities laying so much with the test side. Yet defeats in the first two games were the result not so much of India’s quality, but the brainless batting of the England side. Despite dominating for the majority of both games, England were undone by their lack of nous and a coherent game plan towards the end of each innings.
The rash of slog-sweeps that saw the most facile of run chases turn into a defeat that was ultimately pretty comprehensive, in the first game, epitomised the slapdash showings on display all series. To further compound England’s misery, the chief practitioners of that particular collapse – Pietersen, Flintoff, Collingwood and Jones – are the quartet who will almost certainly be given the job of turning good starts into victories come the World Cup.
If there is anything England can gain from six largely unproductive matches, it is a burgeoning rubbish bag overflowing with players not good enough. This is particularly true of the batting – the facet of the game that truly let England down. An inexperienced brand of seam bowlers generally performed respectably enough.
It was a relief for England that Vikram Solanki finally had a truly abysmal series, rather than his usual showing of rash shots and a useful innings to grant a temporary reprieve. Despite claiming to have matured, Solanki continues to go around in circles and, at 30 and with 49 caps under his belt, Duncan Fletcher surely has the confirmation that the Worcestershire player is an infuriating underachiever.
Owais Shah, the man who performed so well on his test debut, mustered only 11 runs in three innings, yet may still be deserving of another chance, given the consistency of his county efforts and the inventiveness he revealed in the final test. Meanwhile Matt Prior, for reasons no one is quite able to fathom, appeared in all 11 of England’s winter ODIs – and as a specialist batsman in 10 of those. The lack of a half century is a damning indictment of Prior’s lack of quality, while Geraint Jones’ 100 runs in his final two games mean that his wicket-keeping role is secure. Indeed, Chris Read is now a more plausible rival to Jones than Prior.
However, Ian Bell’s performances in the last two games of the season were encouraging and suggest he may be worth another look at in the future. Which leaves Michael Vaughan, who did not participate in his second consecutive ODI tournament. Vaughan’s limited overs record is very poor; his injury record is even worse. It is surely time to ask the skipper to concentrate on test cricket – and, were he not the captain, he would probably have been ditched from the ODI set-up a long time ago.
England’s bowling may have been a mixed bag, but given the fact that Jones, Harmison, Giles and Flintoff (for two games) were all missing, it at least matched expectations.
Ian Blackwell’s tidy left-arm spin went for well under four an over, which would surely have cemented his place, had his batting not appeared so clueless. But Giles’ injury will give him an extended run in the side and, by the law of averages, he must eventually contribute with the bat.
The largely stand-in seam attack each hinted at a bright future, with the bizarre exception of Matthew Hoggard, who seems to lack the mental capacity to play one-day cricket. Yet it must not help being told virtually at the departure lounge that you are in fact wanted for the one-day series. However, ultimately it may come down to a lack of cool when getting smashed.
James Anderson, save for the odd expensive spell, is well on the way to restoring his old reputation, and should play in the World Cup. For all Duncan Fletcher’s obsession with a number nine who can score runs, logic dictates that the berths must be filled be the three best seamers (especially as Jones and Harmison could both score quick runs late on.)
Liam Plunkett showcased his bowling potential – though his 56 against Pakistan looks increasingly like a freak innings, given his woeful showing with a bat in his hand in this series. Still, Plunkett is firmly odds-on for a place in the World Cup squad. Kabir Ali was expensive but did pick up four wickets in one match. The Worcestershire player’s tendency to fall over in his delivery stride compromises his accuracy, and future chances may now only arrive after an injury crisis (so he will certainly play again!) And highly-rated Sajid Mahmood was much the same as Ali but may just have over-taken him in the pecking order.
Assuming Marcus Trescothick returns to the one-day team with better form than when he left it, England’s top seven includes six near-certainties – Trescothick, Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff and Jones – and one definite question mark. Vaughan, Bell and Shah all have claims to the number three berth, as does Ed Joyce, while it is also possible that Alistair Cook will continue his sterling form and demand selection. England should discard Vaughan now, giving them a year to narrow down the four possibles and find two batsmen who can rely on.
Surrey’s Rikki Clarke, newly appointed vice-captain, has long been thought highly of, and could easily find himself in the final 15, albeit only as back-up to Collingwood and Flintoff. He is unlucky that the problem berth – number three – is a position he is alien to.
And the bowling options also look settled. Blackwell will probably pip Giles to the number eight berth, leaving Jones, Harmison and Anderson to complete a line-up of enormous potential. But who to play if a seamer is fit? Plunkett is favourite, though Chris Tremlett – absent through injury – has made an encouraging start, while Sajid Mahmood, if he finally becomes a regular for Lancashire in all forms of the game, could make a late charge for selection.
It is clear success in the one-day series was hardly Duncan Fletcher’s priority; how else to explain the continued selection of two keepers who were not worthy of selection as specialist batsmen?
Despite the disastrous result, England are closer to learning their squad for the World Cup, though it is true those not playing advanced their standing more than those who did. It may also be worth England’s while continuing to rest players in ODIs, at least until the end of the summer; it is the back-ups, rather than the probable starters, who must do most to convince.
Potential Squad for 2007? (starters in bold)
Trescothick
Strauss
Shah
Joyce
Pietersen
Collingwood
Clarke
Flintoff
Jones
Blackwell
Giles
Harmison
Jones
Anderson
Plunkett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)