England need Thorpe's Asian experience

The cluelessness of England’s Test batting against Pakistan has made their triumph in Pakistan in 2000/01 seem even more extraordinary. In that, and their subsequent victory in Sri Lanka, England had one man to thank above all.

On those two tours, Graham Thorpe towered above his teammates: he averaged 61, 19 more than anyone else managed, twice scoring centuries and remaining unbeaten in both series-clinching victories. In England’s first series in Asia since losing all four Tests against India and Sri Lanka in 1993, it was a genuinely remarkable performance.

How did he do it? Memories of Thorpe that winter centre on his self-denial, epitomised by a century in Lahore that, uniquely in Test history, featured only one boundary. Playing the ball extremely late from his back-foot base and always light on his feet, Thorpe’s greatest skill lay in his ability to glide the ball past fielders. He also mastered the fine art of using the sweep shot intelligently to rotate the strike whilst refraining from using it excessively and predictably.

But unlike so many of the current side, Thorpe, even whilst focused on unobtrusive accumulation, was ruthless in dealing with loose deliveries, in particular deploying his rasping cut shot. He also displayed a chameleon-like ability to adjust his game according to the side’s need.

In all three of England’s victorious run chases that winter, Thorpe stood out – and not just because he top-scored each time. Displaying adaptability worthy of Tom Jones, he swapped the attrition of his first innings batting for second innings aggression, driven either by outrageous time wasting in fading light (Pakistan in Karachi) or the sheer extent of his team mate’s struggles (against Sri Lanka at Kandy and Colombo). In all three of England’s run chases, Thorpe’s second innings strike rate was at least 65; it didn’t pass 46 in his six first innings in 2000/01. Most impressive of all was his sheer mental strength facing multifarious challenges, encapsulated in his 64* to take England to their first victory in Pakistan for 39 years.

England's failure to utilise his experience this winter is all the more puzzling in that his coaching of the England Lions has been widely praised, notably by James Taylor. This is not to belittle the influence of Graham Gooch – that “daddy hundred” has become an infuriating cliché is the greatest testament to his impact. But on tours of Asia, Thorpe’s experiences, possibly alongside that of new permanent batting coach Gooch, could help the side greatly: no one should believe a few ODI wins, impressive as they have been, mean England are suddenly experts at playing spin in Test cricket.

Thorpe encountered Muttiah Muralitharan’s doosra when England toured Sri Lanka in 2003/04 and, although his performances were far less impressive than in 2000/2001, his insights into coping with would have been of great help, especially to Ian Bell. Then there is the case of Eoin Morgan. Thorpe, a fellow left-hander and with a very similar stature and style, may have been able to prevent the disintegration of his confidence and technique that occurred in the Pakistan Test series.

Sri Lanka may lack a bowler of Saeed Ajmal’s mystery but the fundamental nature of the challenge will be the same. It is one Thorpe understands better than any other Englishman, and England should use his expertise.

Tournament review: England

Continuing our tournament reviews, here is an assessment of how England did.

A plain side, batting and bowling with orthodoxy, England were nevertheless
described as the tournament’s entertainers, and that is what they were. England produced a series of enthralling games in the group stages and, in conspiring to lose to Ireland and Bangladesh, helped to preserve interests in the tournament. But their thrilling run ended with an ignominious 10-wicket defeat in the quarter-final, with a depleted bowling attack lacking in threat. In the final analysis, a lack of power in the batting and the absence of good spin options to complement Graeme Swann were hurdles they couldn’t have overcome even had they had the best preparation in the world.

Star man
He seldom oozes star quality, but Jonathan Trott produced a tour de force, with 422 runs at 60, and, though you wouldn’t know it, a strike-rate of 80. Critics of him should acknowledge he played his role brilliantly, but was let down by a lack of support.

Disappointment
Jimmy Anderson’s role in the Ashes win isn’t about to be forgotten but he lacked any control in this tournament. By the end, even his captain was saying he was burned out.

Prospects
Andrew Strauss is likely to resign as one-day skipper. His successor will find a side well-suited to English conditions but in need of more oomph with the bat and variation with the ball.

Images from Cardiff

A selection of snaps from the 1st Test at Cardiff, the 100th Test Match venue.

Day 1

Katherine Jenkins belts out the National Anthem (of Wales)

1st over: Johnson to Strauss


Jack Russell


Ravi Bopara

Siddle to Pietersen

Day 2

Anderson to Hughes

Flintoff

Broad to Ponting

A packed house every day

Ricky Ponting

Day 3

Panesar to Ponting

Simon Katich 122

Ponting goes on...

...to 150...

...and out.

Day 4

Panesar to Haddin

Marcus North 125 not out

The increasingly round arm Mitchell Johnson bowls to Strauss

Another 1st: Test cricket under lights in Britain

Bopara lbw Hilfenhaus 1

Please also click here for You Tube clips.

Reasons to be Cheerful?

So in the end it all came down to an aberration in the first test match. Despite getting Oh So Close on two occasions and making the running for most of the series, England were unable to force a victory to level the series. However, being the glass half full man that I am, there is plenty to build on from this series, as well as an equal amount that needs to be learnt quickly.

Positives
1. The dropping of Monty Panesar has resulted in him coming back with more variation than he has shown in his test career to date. He still needs to learn that his appealing is costing him wickets, but he could again be the match winner England need, rather than the stock bowler he had become.
2. Graham Swann as the other spinner is also a potential match winner and we could see the start of spin twins playing even in home tests.
3. Stuart Broad has tightened up his economy and found a way to take wickets on the flattest pitches imaginable. I seems inconceivable that he and James Anderson won’t get the new ball for the foreseeable future.
4. Speaking of Anderson, he seems to have come of age as the senior quick bowler. He bowled with no luck whatsoever, but almost forced the final victory. He had a much better series than his statistics suggest.
5. Matt Prior is a test match batsman. Could he also be the answer to our problems at Number 3? It should certainly make sure that Andrew Flintoff goes back to being the number 7 batsman he is clearly more comfortable with.
6. Although tempered by the flat pitches, most of our batsmen did cash in on the runs available. Only one batsman missed out, and more on him later (3 below). In particular, Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood not only scored runs, but did so in a positive fashion that hadn’t been seen for a while.

To be learnt
1. The dropping of Steve Harmison last year hasn’t had a long term effect on his bowling and along with Ryan Sidebottom, whose body is stopping him from bowling with any zip, his days as an international cricketer should be at an end. This leaves a space in the England bowling attack for someone to break into if England don’t go down the two spinner route.
2. England should take note that their best bowling performance was in the last innings when they had adopted a hugely positive approach to getting a win. Their batting put the WIndies on the back foot and they were able to create pressure and momentum which threw the opposition off kilter.
3. Owais Shah is not a test player. It gives me no pleasure to write that, but he looked out of his depth on the most batsman friendly pitches he will ever play on and his fielding is a liability. England (as ever) have an issue with their number 3 batsman. Ian Bell clearly looks more comfortable when he bats down the order, as does Ravi Bopara. This may leave a space for Michael Vaughan, if he rediscovers his form in county cricket or we may have to look for a more radical solution (see 5 above).
4. Matt Prior is not test class as a wicket-keeper. His batting is as good as any wicket-keeper since Alec Stewart. However, he still needs to work on the keeping side of things.
5. If England are going to go into a series so underprepared as to throw the first match, then they need to learn how to win on unresponsive pitches. In fact, England just plain need to learn to win again.

My fervent hope from this series is that it marks a renaissance of West Indian cricket. They clearly have some talented players and with Dwain Bravo to come back into the fold, they should be a more successful team than they are currently.

From an England point of view, from the South African series onwards, there have been a catalogue of missed opportunities. The results have not matched the performances, but it is the results that the team will be judged on. This needs to be addressed and quickly.

Pietersen's personal problems become public property

Kevin Pietersen paid the price for letting his personal issues with Peter Moores lead him, although perversely England are perhaps now better-placed than they were when the crisis hit.

Much mystery surrounds the current England crisis. The Moores – Pietersen furore developed from the fact that the pair did not see eye-to-eye. We don’t know exactly what that means and due to the outgoing coach’s reticence in talking about the affair, we will perhaps never truly discover what made the protagonists’ relationship so unworkable.

How can a coach and captain clash so catastrophically? It should be taken as read that both want what is best for the team, so it follows that neither should take umbrage at how this is achieved.

I cannot believe that there were sufficient ideological differences between Moores and Pietersen as to how the team should be coached, trained, organised and selected to justify the obvious bad blood.

It is reported that Pietersen did not like the coach’s harsh fitness regime and took exception to Moores’ challenging of senior players. The former grievance could be resolved by sensible discussion; the latter prodded the captain’s ego. And this is the crux of the matter; make no mistake, this fallout was personal.

Why else would Pietersen demand a long meeting with the coach to confirm they were ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’ before accepting the job? He simply did not rate Moores as a coach (probably due to the modern obsession with having coaches who played at the top level) and more significantly, did not like or trust him.

Some culpability must lie with the ECB for failing to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each man, but Moores and Pietersen should have found a way to make the relationship work. That they couldn’t reveals much about their shortcomings in their respective roles.

Man-management is often mentioned as a key responsibility of the modern sporting coach and Moores was clearly lacking in this area, with some players (although not as many as was thought) reporting he had ‘lost’ the dressing room.

Pietersen – perhaps as unmanageable as they come – was even less proficient in working with others. The fact that he did not receive universal team support in his anti-coach machinations will come as a massive shock, revealing a lack of judgment to go alongside his characteristics of arrogance, tactical naivety and disloyalty – a checklist for constructing a bad captain.

England are therefore not as badly off as it appears. Andrew Strauss is more than just a safe pair of hands – he is, and has been for three years, the best candidate for the job and has the experience and nous to heal the dressing room rifts, which are at least now out in the open rather than bubbling away under the surface.

Concerns over the One Day captaincy and the prospects of a split role are secondary – England’s limited overs planning was as poor as it ever has been in India and there is hardly anything to throw away in again starting from scratch.

Pietersen will do just fine back in the ranks, as there is no batsman around better-suited to concentrating on his own game and prospering against a wave of Australian sledging.

The team will be better off without a coach that could not help player development and a leadership axis that could not put personal differences aside in the quest for co-operation.

Written by Philip Oliver, a sports writer who blogs about cricket betting.

Pietersen's favouritism does England no favours

England's desire to keep faith with its players would once have been admirable; now it just makes the management and captain look incapable of making tough decisions.

England’s defeat in the second One Day International made for painful viewing. Watching the defeat, the team’s second mauling in four days, was bad enough, but the post-match interviews were the icing on the cake for England fans frustrated by their team’s performance and composition.

In the era of Team England media training and clichéd soundbites, Kevin Pietersen was never going to do anything other than defend his players and the team’s selection policy, but it would have been refreshing if the skipper referred in some way to the problems that seem so obvious to so many.

Darren Gough accused the England management of favouritism in their selection policy and it is hard to disagree. Tim has referred to the absurd preference for Alastair Cook over Dimitri Mascarenhas and the mystifying absence of Graeme Swann and it appears these choices are those of the captain.

Pietersen has been keen to stamp his authority on the job, and whilst his instinct and man-management have paid some dividends – notably the rejuvenation of Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison - his apparent omnipotence in selection is dangerous for those whose faces don’t fit.

A hierarchy has been established that makes objective decisions difficult and results in selection choices being based on factors other than form, balance of the team and conditions.

It is ridiculous that Swann is not playing. It is odd that Matt Prior is retained as opener despite scoring one half century in his 29 ODI innings. It is debatable whether Paul Collingwood and Steve Harmison should be in the team at all.

Sweeping changes are dangerous and it should be acknowledged that India are playing supremely well, but we all have our favourites, don’t we KP?

My team for the third ODI at Kanpur: Bell, Bopara, Pietersen, Shah, Flintoff, Patel, Collingwood, Prior, Swann, Broad, Anderson


Written by Philip Oliver, a sports writer who blogs about cricket betting.

Stanford Substandard Series

The Stanford Super Series is underway and is yet to produce the sort of cricket that its founder was expecting.

The first Stanford Super Series has only partially lived up to its billing. It has certainly been ‘Stanford’ – the benefactor has been a ubiquitous presence, swilling beer and shaking hands with anyone available – but it has emphatically not been ‘super’.

The opening two matches have both been mere warm-ups, but they did little to help the image of the event. Turgid runscoring on a painfully slow wicket and catching incompetence must have left Sir Allen wondering about the wisdom of his investment. He will not break the American market with this sort of cricket.

Low-scoring limited overs contests can be intriguing, a game of cat and mouse where skilful batting and bowling is rewarded, but the initial Stanford warm-ups were so devoid of big hitting – England managed seven boundaries against Middlesex - that they resembled the middle overs of a 50 over match.

More significantly, the matches have been as low on quality as they have been on big hitting. No amount of excuses citing unfamiliarity with the floodlights can put a gloss on the shocking standard of catching, although Middlesex and England deserve credit for being embarrassed enough at their abject displays in the field to stay on the field to practice. Stanford looked on impassively, no doubt wishing Australia or South Africa had taken up his offer.

However, the big man should not be too critical of the teams he has invited – the wicket served up for them is so lacking in pace that fluent attacking strokeplay is virtually negated, with pacemen required to do little apart from bowl straight and spinners able to maintain 50 over sized economy rates. Some of the piles of money on offer should have been directed towards the groundsman.

If the $20m match between the Superstars and England follows the trend set so far, the one interesting element of this unsavoury series, that of players buckling under pressure will be removed.

There would have been a guilty pleasure in watching someone shell a chance that cost his team the pot of gold – that pleasure will not be had if chances are going down left, right and centre.

Twenty20 cricket retains its integrity when players perform the necessary skills under extreme pressure. This series is not overflowing with integrity and is in danger of turning to a sequence of beer matches, or rather champagne matches.


Written by Philip Oliver, a sports writer who blogs about cricket betting.

Bias or Continuity?

The England selectors have come in for some heavy criticism recently. Are they casting their net wide enough?

Closed shop, private club, old boy’s network. These common descriptions of the current England squad reveal a widespread belief that the national selectors are conservative in their choices and unfairly biased towards players established in the ‘Team England bubble’.

On being elevated to chief selector Geoff Miller stamped his authority but also maintained continuity, evidenced by the axing of Matthew Hoggard and Steve Harmison and the subsequent retention of the same Test team for six matches.

Suggestions that the first choice eleven were too comfortable in their places were not addressed by the dropping of the out-of-form Paul Collingwood or Ian Bell, but rather by the inclusion of Darren Pattinson for the Headingley Test.

This decision was merely a clumsy attempt to show that any productive county player could earn a chance at national level and the selectors have since returned to a policy of blind loyalty, or continuity as they prefer to call it.

Giving players a fair chance to adapt to Test cricket is the correct policy – during the darkest days of English cricket in the 1990’s virtually any player was two bad performances away from being dropped – but the selectors must maintain impartiality.

This does not just apply to selectors’ own picks or county affiliations (and we will never know whether Tim Ambrose’s continued involvement after a horror summer is due to favourable treatment by Peter Moores or Ashley Giles, or perhaps both), but also towards the divisional structure.

The selectors rightly place more significance on performances in the top flight, otherwise there is little point in having split divisions and an apparent difference in quality. However, it could be said that it is too hard for second division players to earn international recognition.

The fact that Warwickshire and Worcestershire bounced straight back to division one after suffering relegation in 2007 suggests there is a gulf in class, although the Surrey vintage of 2008 would surely have struggled in division two.

Selectorial discussions must include phrases such as ‘he scored his runs in division one’, suggesting division two players must score and take a certain amount more of runs and wickets. Such a figure is hard to pinpoint, so selectors are more inclined to go for players from top flight counties.

13 of next year’s 19 central contracts belong to players from division one counties in 2008 and both of the most recent additions to the national squad (Ambrose and Samit Patel) ply their trade in the top flight.

There is something not quite right in the selectors’ dynamic. How can Ravi Bopara go from 12th man for the Oval Test against South Africa to out of a 15 man touring squad? He heavily outscored Owais Shah in division two this season and it is a myth that the latter is in irresistible One Day form (three half centuries in 17 knocks since his breakthrough ton last summer).

Similarly, do the selectors really see a Twenty20 future for Alastair Cook and deserving of a Stanford place? The belief persists that the selectors have their favourites and are failing to reward good domestic displays, especially in division two.


Written by Philip Oliver, a sports writer who blogs about cricket betting.

Give Panesar some slack

There seems to be a consensus currently that Monty Panesar is treading on thin ice. That if he doesn't perform in India he should be dropped. That his record against India is poor and that Swann might do a better job. There is some sense in these views and evidence to back them up. However, I would contend that Panesar is still a top Test spinner, whose best years are certainly yet to come, and that England would be insane to drop him.

I have read numerous articles of late that suggest Panesar had an average summer for England and that his powers are waning. Having watched virtually every delivery of the series against South Africa I would refute this charge very strongly. Panesar, like all the bowlers in the series, was asked to toil on some very batting friendly pitches. This he did, ending up the third highest wicket-taker in the series, with the second best average and and excellent economy rate.

But for some very negative batting by South Africa, dropped catches, missed stumpings and atrocious umpiring Panesar could easily have ended the series with twice the number of wickets and a match-winning haul in the decisive third Test. That he didn't is the nature of cricket, but to accuse him of having an average series is grossly unfair.

It is fact that Panesar's record against India is poor. They have been his toughest opposition in his short Test career - the only team to force his average above 38, raising it to a massive 55. This is a huge hike when compared to his overall Test average of 31.95. However, it is worth remembering that the 6 matches Panesar has played against India included his first ever Test series, in India, and a home series that was dominated by the bat. In that series in England only seamer friendly conditions at Trent Bridge allowed either team to force a result, with India winning it and the series (1-0).

It is fair to say that Panesar has struggled against India, but he is not alone in that. A certain Shane Warne has a record little better against the Indians. Over 14 Tests versus India, Warne managed to take just 43 wickets at an awful average of 47.18, with an economy rate of 3.10 and a strike rate of 91.2. The great leg spinner only managed one 5 wicket haul against India, despite his constant attacking.

The truth is India play spin brilliantly. They are nurtured against slow bowlers, mastering the required technique, even when playing the best, such as Warne and Murali (whose average in India is just 39.58). To expect a finger spinner such as Panesar to do better in India than the likes of Warne and Muralitharan is madness. Yet, it seems that that is what Monty must do if he is to retain his Test place according to many critics.

Surely, it is better to expect Panesar to bowl as well as he can and hope that in doing so he helps England to perform well in what is traditionally their second toughest tour. Without the pressure of unrealistic expectations Monty might just surprise everyone and get the better of India's spin masters.

King Kev's bright new era

Here is how England's players rated in their 4-0 win over South Africa:

Ian Bell 6.5
His superb innings in the third game showed he has the ability to pierce the infield, and the game to be a very successful ODI opener. Still, the instances of a bewildering inability to assert himself - his 69-ball 35 being a case in point - remain too frequent.
Matt Prior 8
Thirteen catches - several of them exceptional - suggested an improved wicket-keeper, although the real challenge will come in Tests, when reserves of stamina and levels of skill are tested to the limit. He batted with intent and class at the top of the order, scoring at a strike-rate of 93, even if some dismissals were a little too reminiscent of Prior's last spell in the one-day side.
Owais Shah 7
Given the opportunity to bat in his county position of number three, Shah improved as the series wore on. His 44* in the fourth game was testament to what a fine limited-overs player he is, though it remains to be seen what is ultimately his best position. Credit must also be given for the improvements in his fielding, which will help his Test claims.
Kevin Pietersen 9
Moving back down to number four, where he is most comfortable, Pietersen did not bat like a man weighed down by responsibility. With his captaincy seeming inspired, and credited with reinvigorating Flintoff and Harmison, and his bowling crucial in the first game, journalists were incapable of writing a piece without reference to his "golden touch". And, so far, no one can argue.
Andrew Flintoff 10
After a run of dire batting form, the decision to promote Flintoff to five attracted some surprise. But it has always been his favourite position, for it allows him the time to play himself in; indeed, he has never been particularly adept at coming in during the slog overs. Powerful, destructive and yet calculated, Flintoff's batting looked back to his '04 ODI vintage. Add 10 wickets at less than 13 to his 187 runs for once out, and no one could argue that this was Flintoff's best ever one-day series. There is still a fear he unbalances the Test side, but in ODIs no such fears exist.
Ravi Bopara 4
His series amounted to two overs for 11 - and the doubts over his ability at international level persist.
Paul Collingwood 5
Essentially anonymous in his four games - but he is certainly a reassuring presence at number six.
Samit Patel 8
Marked his debut series with a five-fer and made a vital and composed 31 in his only innings. His batting oozes class; his bowling is canny but probably not as good as Graeme Swann's. Patel looks an international player, however. His selection may suggest bits n' pieces, but they are high quality.
Luke Wright 4
Another player who was inconsequential. The life of a non-bowling (apparently) number eight is fraught with danger. Wright offers destructive, match-turning potential, but should make way for the unlucky Swann in India.
Stuart Broad 8
His elevation to fourth in the official ODI rankings may seem a little hasty, but Broad's one-day bowling continues to improve, and his 5-23 may mark an important turning point in his career.
Steve Harmison 7
Showed the virtue of having hit-the-deck bowlers in the middle of the innings. While he is in this form, England are a much stronger ODI outfit for his return.
James Anderson 5
Anderson's miserable one-day international form continued, although at least his economy rate was more respectable. Still, Ryan Sidebottom and Kabir Ali will fancy his place, for all his tremendous improvements as a Test bowler.

The Verdict
A 4-0 victory over South Africa almost defies belief. There are certainly some significant caveats - like England in South Africa in 2004/05, the tourists put everything into the Tests and clearly did not care much for the ODIs, while their side suffered from imbalance and a weak batting line-up from five down. Still, England can claim a considerable degree of responsibility for this. Flintoff was obviously phenomenal, while Prior, Patel and Harmison also offered marked improvements on those discarded after the New Zealand defeat. The result of it all is England's one-day side has a pretty convincing look - the openers did well; numbers three to six have shown they are excellent players, while Patel and Swann complement an imposing four-man pace attack. If they can win in India, then the notion of England being second may no longer seem preposterous.

Winter touring squads Part Two

A trip to India follows hard on the heels of the Antigua cash bonanza, which marks the start of England’s preparations for next year’s Ashes.

A seven match One Day series in India in mid-November would normally see a vastly different-looking team to one that performs in England, but only one change should really be expected. The spin department will require strengthening, so Swann will surely replace Wright in the first choice line-up.

Bopara will travel as reserve batsman and Mascarenhas’ ability to bowl cutters on the slower wickets should guarantee his recall. Tim Bresnan and Chris Tremlett will battle it out to join Sidebottom as back-up seamers and James Tredwell, a member of the preliminary 30 man Champions Trophy squad, could get the nod to provide a spin alternative.

The selectors might decide to take two wicket keepers, which will re-open perhaps their most discussed issue. That the same England keeper does not play more than three consecutive series is one of the safest cricket bets around.

Matt Prior is guaranteed a berth and Pietersen’s apparent desire for consistent selection might see the Sussex gloveman regain his Test spot. A readymade One Day understudy exists in Steven Davies – three fifties and two tons in six NatWest Pro40 knocks this summer – although a more experienced stopper will be needed to challenge Prior in the Test series.

James Foster’s expertise in standing up to Danish Kaneria for Essex this term might be a crucial factor and he has improved his batting form at the right time, hitting successive unbeaten Championship tons. Tim Ambrose and Phil Mustard have had disappointing seasons and will be surprised to see their names in either party.

Another key area for discussion in the Test squad selection will be the top order. Alastair Cook, Pietersen, Ian Bell, and Paul Collingwood are guaranteed selection in a 16 man squad, but the necessity for two keepers, three spinners and four seamers to supplement Flintoff means two of Michael Vaughan, Andrew Strauss, Owais Shah and Bopara will miss out.

Pietersen might be reluctant to have two former skippers in his Ashes side, so the out-of-form senior pair might be omitted, as it is important to have as many places in the team as possible stable ahead of the Australia showdown. Bopara and Shah’s selection would necessitate another move in the order for Bell, this time to opener.

Patel and Prior can be viewed as top six batsmen, allowing plenty of back-up to be taken in the fast bowling department, although Harmison should be properly prepared after taking part in the preceding One Day series.

There are plenty of common names on my parties for the first leg of the winter tours, which is the route I believe the current regime want to go down.

15 man squad for three Stanford matches: Pietersen, Bell, Prior, Flintoff, Collingwood, Bopara, Wright, Patel, Swann, Broad, Anderson, Shah, Mascarenhas, Sidebottom, Harmison

16 man ODI squad for India: Pietersen, Bell, Prior, Shah, Flintoff, Collingwood, Patel, Swann, Broad, Harmison, Anderson, Bopara, Mascarenhas, Wright, Tredwell, Sidebottom

16 man Test squad for India: Pietersen, Cook, Bell, Bopara, Collingwood, Flintoff, Patel, Foster, Broad, Anderson, Panesar, Shah, Prior, Swann, Sidebottom, Harmison

Winter touring squads Part One

It’s time to start thinking about the winter touring squads and there is much at stake for both the selectors and players.

Due to the Champions Trophy cancellation, England’s international season is nearly over. The condensed nature of this summer’s home series – next year’s One Day series with Australia finishes on 20th September – means the players have an unfamiliar break from international cricket.

This window – they begin their three match Stanford bonanza on 26th October – also gives the selectors time to consider their options. They have been out of the firing line since the captaincy change and One Day resurgence grabbed the headlines, but Geoff Miller and his panel will again be under scrutiny, as there are some big decisions to be made.

Of course, picking the squad for Antigua is just half the job; the big money is made by those in the team and it will be a safe cricket bet that there will be no talk of rotation or burnout from the regular players on this short tour.

The Stanford matches are not just about making money; England play only one more Twenty20 match, against West Indies, before they begin their ICC World Twenty20 campaign next June. The selectors will therefore be keen to ensure that the players who cash the cheques in Antigua will be the same ones that commence the quest for England’s first ever global international trophy.

The One Day team’s current success might suggest that that squad picks itself, although it is worth remembering that Tim Ambrose, Ravi Bopara, Dimitri Mascarenhas and Graeme Swann – all currently out of the high-flying 50 over outfit – featured in the last Twenty20 match, against New Zealand in mid-June.

Ryan Sidebottom was missing for that clash and his persistent injuries, combined with Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff’s return to the bowling ranks, have seen him, against the cricketing odds, become a fringe player in the limited over set-up.

However, the all-round abilities of the current 50 over team – nine reliable batsmen and arguably 10 viable bowling options – suggests it will be hard for anyone to break into the team in Antigua.

What can't King Kev do?

Well, what to make of that?

England beat South Africa in the first ODI - impressive enough. But to obliterate them in the second was an extraordinary display. After all the false dawns, can we finally say England's one-day side are making progress?

Kevin Pietersen can seemingly do no wrong as captain: he has succeeded in reinvigorating a side who, following Michael Vaughan's tear-leaden resignation, appeared close to crisis point. It remains to be seen whether he can make the sides consistently successful, but, suddenly, the one-day outfit has been transformed into one of the most powerful line-ups around.

Since the defeat to New Zealand, three players - Matt Prior, Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison - have returned to the side, and each has performed outstandingly to date.

With Flintoff and Harmison providing the middle-over penetration England have perennially lacked, the bowling line-up is powerful indeed. Stuart Broad today produced his best showing to date, and has been a consistent one-day performer, unlike in Tests. Conversely James Anderson, once regarded as worth his place only in the limited-overs side, has discovered consistency in Tests but seems to have regressed in ODIs. His figures over his last 18 games are damning indeed: 13 wickets at averages (56.61) and economy rates (5.37) that are unacceptable. If he does not improve in the remaining three ODIs, England should look elsewhere: at Ryan Sidebottom, who has proved a canny one-day operator with variations aplenty; or Kabir Ali, in outstanding form for Worcestershire for the last two years.

Prior has, so far, outperformed Tim Ambrose and Phil Mustard, keeping surprisingly well and batting assertively at the top of the order. While he certainly deserves a place in the side, there may be a case for replacing Luke Wright with a specialist opener (Rob Key, Joe Denly or Vikram Solanki) and moving him down to Wright's slot at seven.

Doubts persist over the suitability of Ian Bell opening - he has all the shots, but too often fails to be assertive - and Owais Shah at three. Shah performed superbly against New Zealand batting at six, but may prove a little vulnerable to the moving ball early on. Ideally, he would bat at four or five, but with Pietersen and Flintoff settled there and Paul Collingwood at number six, he should be given an extended run at three. Providing he is free to express himself, Shah should prove capable there.

From four to six England's batting has an imperious look. The remaining selectorial issues concern numbers seven and eight. Wright is on the periphery of the side, but at least provides true destructive, game-changing potential at seven - unlike Ravi Bopara, who is not comfortable attacking from the off. Perhaps the experience and phenomenal six-hitting ability of Dimitri Mascarenhas - also probably the best bowler of the three - is the best option.

Samit Patel has started promisingly - but England may be better off choosing their best spinner, Graeme Swann, who has shown he is an attacking off-spinner and has played some fine innings at number eight. It is ironic that Swann, who many felt was selected over Monty Panesar for his three-dimensional game, has now seen the same fate befall him.

Under King Kevn's reign, England have the tools at their disposal to, finally, establish themselves as a one-day force. They have a brilliant middle-order, bat deep and have a fine, four-pronged pace attack. More work needs to be done - but it is a long time since England's ODI side has had such a convincing look.

England Dangerously Close to their Best Limited Overs Side

Whilst the media circus is frenzying around the appointment of the new England Cricket Captain and his first Test match in charge, the announcement of the limited overs squad to take on South Africa has passed relatively under the radar. Whatever the rights and wrongs of who is and is not in the Test squad, it is hard to argue that the limited overs squad is far wrong, especially after the inclusion of two of the best domestic one day players in England this year, in Samit Patel and Matt Prior.

Andrew Flintoff’s return essentially allows England to replace a pace bowler with an allrounder and a brilliant one at that. More importantly though, England seem to have decided that they want an aggressive keeper batsman who can open the innings and indeed bat through it if required. The only candidate capable of this job was Matt Prior and he has rightfully been recalled. Whilst Phil Mustard is aggressive, he has not often made the big match defining innings required of a top order batsman. If Prior gets to fifty you now sense that he could go on to a hundred. There will of course be those who criticise his selection as compromising on wicket keeping ability. However, Prior’s mistakes with the gloves came in Test cricket, not limited overs cricket, where the demands of concentration and focus are not as severe on keepers as in Test match cricket, where the keeper can find himself in the field for 90 overs a day, three days out of five, as opposed to just 50 overs. Because of the very nature of the ODI and Twenty20 games there are not as many catches for keepers either and in fact there are more stumping and run out opportunities, which are Prior’s strong point as a keeper. He has also been working extremely hard at Sussex on his keeping, which has reportedly improved and he has been churning out the runs consistently.

With Kevin Pietersen now rightfully elevated to number three in the batting line-up, from where he can dictate the innings, England’s top three looks very strong, with Ian Bell acting as the foil around whom the others can bat, but whom himself can also take advantage of the Powerplay overs, with his brilliant footwork and ability to hit over the top. England need to reassess who bats at four however. Owais Shah gave a master class in limited overs batting on Monday for Middlesex against Somerset, as he essentially won the game for his side with a brilliantly paced 96. Batting at number three he rescued his side from what could easily have been humiliation and almost single handedly set a competitive target. He has comfortably been the best England One Day player over the last year and the most consistent. He has previously had to settle for late order cameos for England, coming in at number six. He is though a top order batsman and is especially adept at milking the spinners, with his wristy strokeplay. England should utilise his skills earlier and for longer and he, not Ravi Bopara, should be coming in at four.

Bopara you sense needs to settle in the side and would benefit from having the pressure taken off his shoulders for now by coming in at number six. He has played his best innings for England down the order and the nature of the position would help him to flourish I believe, as he would be capable of playing a patient rebuilding game or an aggressive cameo. The situation would not allow him time to think about what he was doing, how fast he was scoring or how much pressure he was under. A settled Bopara could then look to work his way up the order at a later date, although he looks the natural successor to Paul Collingwood long term. Collingwood himself will of course bat at number five, the position he has so expertly made his own over the last few years.

Flintoff should be scheduled to bat at number seven, although he could of course be promoted depending on the match situation. Whatever happens you don’t want Flintoff in before the last ten to fifteen overs against the spinners, or you risk losing him before the period in which he can inflict the most damage, against the faster bowlers. Doubling the power down the order, Luke Wright should feature at number eight. His best innings for England have come down the order and he could be given full license here to unleash his power in the death overs. With two such power hitters lurking down the order, the side would be well balanced and filled with matchwinners and therefore the pressure would be relieved on the likes of Pietersen and Flintoff, who would be able to perform with more freedom.

With Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann following in the order, the batting could not be any stronger, with number eleven James Anderson also far from being the rabbit he used to be. Broad would for me bat above Swann, as he has more potential and skill with the bat and has two modes of play. Both could cause damage at the end of the innings if required. So the batting line-up looks formidable, with Alistair Cook and Samit Patel on standby, along with Ryan Sidebottom and Chris Tremlett in this particular squad. Whilst Paul Collingwood is suspended I would play Samit Patel, who should remain a part of the squad to play in place of either Bopara or Wright on those pitches which offer more for spinners. He would be an able second spinner I believe.

So who is unlucky? Well, Mascarenhas is obviously one who is unfortunate to be discarded altogether, whilst Vikram Solanki is another, who after his scintillating domestic form was perhaps worthy of a look in. On the bowling front, Kabir Ali has been the best bowler in domestic cricket this year and could add another wicket taking option to the line-up, whilst Liam Plunkett, so good in Australia, is looking to prove his form and fitness. Finally, Mustard and more so James Foster are unfortunate to lose out to Prior. Foster would have been the ideal candidate to play down the order for England, as he does for Essex with such aplomb. The way England are going to play dictates that he is not in the side however.

The bowling looks stronger for the return of Flintoff for Sidebottom, whose figures (Average: 44.37, Economy: 4.86, S/R: 54.7) are hardly impressive over the last few series against New Zealand. There are also questions over his fitness. England would look threatening with three impressive and contrasting One Day performers in Anderson, Broad and Flintoff, who offer swing, seam, bounce, pace and consistency between them. The vastly improved Swann would offer the wiley spin option. Meanwhile, the fifth bowling options are plentiful with the recently impressive Collingwood well supported by the likes of Bopara and the impressive death bowling of Luke Wright. Samit Patel, when playing would offer a decent second spinning option, with Shah available if needed.

The Test match series may have gone against South Africa and it may yet be a complete disaster. However, England are making progress in Limited Overs cricket, albeit with recent defeats to New Zealand, both home and away. They have beaten Australia (a), India (h) and Sri Lanka (a) in the last 18 months, which would have been unthinkable two years ago. South Africa are currently the best ODI side in the world and for good reason. However, England have picked a squad capable of challenging them and even beating them. England are capable of beating any team in the world. Hopefully Pietersen’s brand of captaincy will encourage his charges to be bold and aggressive and play the kind of cricket we all know that they can play.


England ODI Team to take on South Africa:

Ian Bell
Matt Prior (wk)
Kevin Pietersen (c)
Owais Shah
Paul Collingwood
Ravi Bopara
Andrew Flintoff
Luke Wright
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
James Anderson

Squad: Alistair Cook, Samit Patel, Dimitri Mascarenhas, Kabir Ali.

Why so boring?

Kevin Pietersen's appointment as England captain in all three forms of the game stole the headlines, and rightly so - there was nothing else to talk about. For, while many believe there are profound problems within the set-up, the selectors were incredibly cautious in their squad for The Oval. There was only one change, with Ravi Bopara coming in, and even that was an enforced one.

There will be ample to discuss, as we witness Pietersen's first game as full-time captain. It promises to be nothing but intriguing. Given his lack of captaincy experience, there are so many intangibles that it is hard to make predictions over how he will do, although I am optimistic he will go some way towards reinvigorating the side, imbuing team-mates with vivacity and positivity and leading from the front, even if my first choice would have been Rob Key.

But what is truly astonishing is England's selectors still seem stubbornly in denial over England's problems. This was a golden opportunity to try out the plethora of players challenging for a spot, answer (at least partially) some fundamental selectorial questions and shake up a side that has been struggling for far too long.

My side for The Oval would have been as follows:
Cook
Key
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Harmison
Jones
(With Shah in the squad as reserve batsman. Ideally I would try him instead of Collingwood, but that would be one change too many.)

While I would, in any case, fancy this side to defeat the eleven who played in the last Test, even if they played and lost England would gain much from the match in terms of learning about fringe players.

One Test, especially a dead rubber, cannot tell you about a player's long-term durability at Test level, of course, but it is a start. With a radical shake-up to the side England would be beter able to answer a number of pressing questions, such as

Is Rob Key a beter bet as opener than Andrew Strauss? Given Key's impressive form over the last few seasons and Strauss's lack of a century against anyone other than a depleted New Zealand for two years, I suspect yes.

Can Ian Bell make the number three position his own? He has never made a century there, but he deserves to be given an extended run in what should be his natural position, starting from this Test.

Is Matt Prior a sufficiently good batsman to bat at six? And, more to the point, how much has his keeping improved in the last eight months? At least Prior's correct selection in the limited-overs squad will provide some clues to answering these questions.

Is Graeme Swann's all-round package of more value to England than Monty Panesar's? Averages of 41 with the bat and 25 with the ball in Division One, aided by his fine ODI performances, suggest this could now be the case.

Is Steve Harmison back to his best? Can he be a consistent threat at Test level? England must select him for the 4th Test, and see if Pietersen can help bring the best out of him.

Is Simon Jones good - and fit - enough to thrive in Tests once more? Most suspect the answer to the first question is an emphatic 'yes' but would answer in the negative to the second question. But, in a five-man attack, Jones could bowl, say, four four-over spells a day, being used as a strike-bowler, along with Flintoff. England utilising these two in such a capacity could help both to take 20 wickets and to keep them fit until at least the 2009 Ashes. Of more immediate significance, England will surely want to play five bowlers in India.

As it is, England will learn very little from this Test, save for a little about Pietersen's captaincy skills. It represents a depressing missed opportunity. In the big picture, it doesn't really matter how much England lose this series by. The answers to the above questions, however, are fundamental to how England can improve, but, typically and infuriatingly of the current set-up, too many will remain unasked.

Rob Key: next England captain

Well, well. After fumbling along for so long with faults prevalent but the cosy set-up in denial about these, there is finally a shake-up within the England side. Michael Vaughan, who won more Tests than any other captain, has resigned; Paul Collingwood has seemingly been pushed from the one-day set-up.

There are two obvious candidates to replace them. Kevin Pietersen is well established as a star in both forms of the game for England. Captaincy could help rein in his impetuosity, which reared its ugly head when trying to launch Paul Harris for a six to bring up his century. During the last one-day international, when he was stand-in captain, his choice of bowlers seemed a little less formulaic than Collingwood's has been. He clearly has a fine cricketing brain and under-rated tactical acuman. Making your best player captain is, in many senses, the most logical step. However, he still has a worrying lack of captaincy experience - doubts exist over his ability to handle disparate characters within the side.

There may be calls for Andrew Strauss to be handed the job on the basis that he should have led England to Australia in 2006/07. But that is no sound reason. His current form is grim and he has scored hundreds only against New Zealand in the last two years. Add to this that he is not in the ODI side and it is clear England must look elsewhere, for all his captaincy credentials.

But where? The next England skipper should be Rob Key. He has led Kent with distinction for almost three seasons, winning the Twenty20 Cup last season. This year, they were one shot away from retaining the trophy; they will play Essex in the Friends Provident Trophy final; and they still have a very realistic chance of Champuionship glory. At 29, he has developed tremendous cricketing nous and commands respect. Key is a phlegmatic character, outwardly relaxed but alo fiercely determined. His status as an 'outsider' - he has not played for three and-a-half years - is surely a benefit, given the deep malaise England currently find themselves in. New ideas, which have clearly been very successful at Kent, could reinvigorate the side.

But what of Key the batsman? For a captain's authority is undermined if there are doubts over whether he merits his place in the side, as Vaughan is striking testament to. Key did reasonbly in his 15 Tests, but is a better player now, who knows how to get the best out of himself - and has also lost plenty of weight. Though not outstanding, he is having another good season, averaging 51 in first-class cricket (it was 56 last season), including 178* for Kent against New Zealand. Given the batting woes of the top three, he fully merits a recall even if his captaincy skills are ignored. Whilst it is true he was out-of-his-depth in his brief ODI career to date, his limited-overs game has developed wonderfully of late, as he has learned the art of pacing innings - and even developed a paddle over fine-leg. So he merits a place in all three forms of the game on current form. Add in his know-how and captaincy pedigree and Rob Key stands out as England's best choice.

England rebel against the Eighties

For those of us who grew up with cricket in the 1980s, the current state of consistency in the England selection is a massive sea change. The 1988 series against West Indies saw 23 players and four captains used in a five match series, with a further 5 players in the team for the one off match against Sri Lanka. To put that into context, if you took the last 28 players to debut for England, you would be back to Rob Key’s debut in 2002 and include players such as Antony McGrath, Ed Smith and Richard Johnson, who have long left the international reckoning. From 1980 to 1988, 50 players made their debut for England. Since 2000, the number of debutants has been 39, despite the increasing demands on players

While 1988 was the nadir in terms of selection, even in 1986, 19 players were used in a three test series against India and 17 in the subsequent three match series against New Zealand. Even in the successful Ashes series in 1985, 17 players were used – a far cry from the twelve players used 20 years later. Indeed in 2001, 19 players were used as the side continued to struggle against the Australians.

One of the benefits that the central contracts have brought England is a consistency of selection. Players don’t need to fear a single poor score and the Team England ethic is very strong. Players become comfortable with who they are playing with and used to their roles within the team, on and off the pitch. However, there needs to be evolution with the selection and it was also revealing in comparing the teams for the first test against South Africa that only Andrew Strauss had played in the corresponding fixture four years ago, in the game that he made his debut. Therefore, while England have enjoyed a stable team, it has evolved into a new unit over the past four years.

There has been criticism of this becoming a cosy club. However, the benefits of consistency have been seen with Strauss, who has now formed a stable opening partnership with Ali Cook, even if they now both need to convert their starts into big scores. Ian Bell was under pressure for his place at the start of the series, but was given the opportunity to respond with his innings at Lords which took England from a precarious situation to a potential match-winning one. James Anderson is another player who is now benefitting from a run in the team.

The weakness with this system is that players can last for too long in the setup. But for Marcus Trescothick’s well publicised problems, he could well be keeping Cook out of the team. Previous incumbents of the top six have either retired at the top (Hussein, Thorpe) or had injuries that have taken them out of the team (Butcher). The current form of Michael Vaughan and in particular Paul Collingwood should possibly see them left out of the team. However, this should not be done in a way that leads back to the bad old days of the 1980s. Owais Shah, Ravi Bopara and Rob Key all remain within the England setup, either as the next players in, or as the current Lions captain. England have had success by evolution, not revolution and the long term importance of a settled, but not complacent team is paramount.

Shambolic England On The Brink

Mickey Arthur this week denounced the recall of Steve Harmison as a desperate and short term move by England which took no account of the upcoming 2009 Ashes series. He was right. Michael Atherton tore into the selectors both in general and specifically for recalling Harmison in The Times, stating that they were sending out the wrong message about selection. He was right. Harmison would have been a temporary and short sighted pick. He is bowling well at present and would undoubtedly take wickets, but he doesn’t play ODI’s, he doesn’t travel as every Tom, Dick and Harry knows and he takes a good few matches to get into form, largely because he doesn’t put in the training which other players do. So that would make him available for the second Test series of every summer which just is not viable.

Meanwhile, “The Michael Vaughan Batting Club”, to quote a friend, seems now to be more exclusive and cosy than ever, when it’s hegemony should be in the process of being disrupted. To the untrained eye it appears as though England have imploded in a relatively short period of time. However, look a little closer and the problems have been mounting for a year. The series loss to India was unfortunate, but signalled the start of the latest period of turmoil. The embarrassing performance in Sri Lanka hit the side hard and many a mistake was made. Owais Shah, one of England’s best players of spin and slow, low pitches was bafflingly left out of the side so as to accommodate Ravi Bopara, who proceeded to have one of the worst debuts by an England Test player. And following a series of drops, Matt Prior himself was dropped, which saw Tim Ambrose take over the gloves, another compromise between keeping and batting ability was made.

To New Zealand and one poor match spelled the end for Matthew Hoggard, whilst Steve Harmison finally got what had been coming his way for the previous two years. Team England escaped with a 2-1 series win, but they had been expected to thrash the Kiwis. Tim Ambrose and Paul Collingwood looked good and Andrew Strauss appeared to be back to his best. However, the fact that the Kiwis are a very limited side was completely forgotten. On to the home series against New Zealand and England faced an even more limited side, eventually triumphing 2-0. However, they deserved to lose the second Test after yet more woeful batting and despite a Michael Vaughan revival (currently expected in 1 in 4 series). A good side would have thrashed the Kiwis twice.

Then South Africa arrived and on a placid pitch England racked up the runs, but the ease with which South Africa avoided defeat showed that the pitch had played a major role. The key point was also that only Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen made big runs. The bowling attack meanwhile lacked hostility and pace. Whilst swing may account for average batsman, good batsmen need to be tested with pace and bounce. Andrew Flintoff’s return has been claimed to have unbalanced the side. That is simply not true. He has kept this England side in the hunt and given them drive which was sorely lacking. Ultimately, the sad truth is that England are playing a very good side, a testing side and they are realising that they are just not good enough.

Alistair Cook last scored a ton ten Tests ago, but at least he has averaged 40.00 since November 2007. Vaughan is averaging 27.52 since the start of the Sri Lanka tour, with 1 hundred in 23 innings. Collingwood averages 28.25 in the same period with no hundreds in 18 innings. And Tim Ambrose’s average in down to 26.76 as it continues it’s descent. England can not afford to keep on carrying players, but that is exactly what they continue to do. The term “Michael Vaughan Batting Club” is of course meant to be comical, but it sums up this current England side perfectly. Vaughan has always been staunchly loyal to his charges and this was once a virtue, in the days after the brutally honest regime of Nasser Hussain, but it has now most certainly become a problem, with judgement now blurred by loyalty.

Andrew Strauss was out of form for an age before he was finally dropped and then recalled without hitting a single run in county cricket. Paul Collingwood was dropped for one match before being recalled for the current Test in place of Stuart Broad. The reasoning behind this seemed stupid at the start and even stupider now. Stuart Broad needed a rest, yet is playing a four day game for Nottinghamshire. The extra batsman would balance the side, yet they essentially replaced a cricketer who has averaged 55 this year with one who has averaged 8. Are the fans missing something here? The end result was obvious for everyone to see even before Collingwood had gone out to bat and once he was there it was even more painfully obvious, no less so than to Collingwood himself, whose torturous 45 minute innings was packed full of nerves and completely devoid of any semblance of confidence. His lack of confidence seems even to be effecting his fielding, as he dropped a relatively easy catch off of Neil McKenzie later on.

England need a reality check and now. They will lose this series, that is all but a certainty, barring a Flintoff inspired miracle and changes to the team. Even worse though, they will slip to 4th in the world and are likely to be humiliated in India and at home by Australia if they do not do what is necessary and change the batting line-up. If it means changing the captain then so be it. Players can only live on past glories for so long and Geoffrey Boycott is not alone in seeing Vaughan as a cricketer who is far from the man who peaked in Australia in 2002. It isn’t as if he excels for Yorkshire either and one good score every other series simply isn’t enough. Who comes in for Vaughan and Collingwood is up for debate, but the leading candidates are Ravi Bopara and Owais Shah, whilst the likes of Rob Key and Joe Denly will be watching the latest troubles of Cook and Strauss with great interest. The captaincy would have to pass to either a younger player, or the more experienced Andrew Strauss, who is statistically proven to improve his run output as captain, averaging around 15 runs more as captain for Middlesex and England (55.66). Vaughan incidentally averages 5.62 runs less as captain (36.02).

On the wicket keeping front it is probably time to go with the best keeper in the country, who in my opinion is James Foster. He will also fit nicely into the ODI side, allowing England to keep consistency of selection which they see as being crucial. If Broad has been returned to county cricket to work on his bowling then playing four bowlers becomes an easier task for England, with the current incumbents the most deserving, although Broad and Simon Jones would be pushing the likes of Bopara and Sidebottom hard for their places in the near future. It is worth noting that at the moment Broad and Jones could only play in a five man attack. Perhaps if the batting line-up could deliver the runs then five bowlers would once again be a viable option. For the moment though it is not.


England Test Batting Averages since November 2007:

Strauss 45.07
Cook 40.00
Vaughan 27.52
Pietersen 41.31
Bell 46.66
Collingwood 28.25
Ambrose 26.75
Broad 41.22
Flintoff 45.5 (3 innings, 1 not out)
Bopara 8.40 (5 innings)

Test Debuts Since 2000:

4 Wicket Keeper debuts;
10 Batsman debuts;
22 Bowler debuts;
3 Allrounder debuts.

Test Debuts Since Ashes 2005:

2 Wicket Keeper debuts;
2 Batsman debuts;
9 Bowler debuts;
1 Allrounder debut.

How do you solve a problem like… Stuart Broad?

This wasn’t meant to be a series of articles, but the similarities with the previous subject and the problems facing England are just too great to ignore.

Stuart Broad, son of former England opener Chris, has been on the England radar for a number of years now, despite his still only being 23. Formerly a promising batsman, he took up bowling late finding immediate success for England U19s and Leicestershire. He ended up on an England A tour at the age of 19 and has been involved in the England set up since, firstly in the One Day team before making his debut in Sri Lanka in the winter.

Broad has generally impressed with his attitude to international cricket. Unlike other young tyros Saj Mahmood and Liam Plunkett, he hasn’t been fazed by the step up in class and even though Yuvraj hit him for 36 off an over in the 2020 world cup, he has learnt from the experience and is and should remain a vital cog in the England One Day team.

His presence in the team is enhanced by his batting. He averages 21 in One Day internationals and has dug England out of a hole on a number of occasions. His unbeaten 45 against India at Manchester was made off 73 balls and won England the game. This proved that he had the mental composure of a genuine batsman rather than a late order hitter.

More recently his prowess with the bat has been shown in the test team. He has hit fifties in the last three test matches and averages above 40 in test match cricket (more than his father). To put that into context with the archetypal number 8 batsman in England’s recent history, Ashley Giles managed 4 fifties during his 54 match career. He clearly has a talent for batting and adds strength to the England batting line up.

So we have a young fast bowler, who is composed at International level and who’s batting looks like it could move him into the realms of being a genuine all-rounder. So where is the problem? Sadly, and hence the comparison with Matt Prior, it is with his strongest suit – his bowling. Just as Matt Prior’s wicket-keeping isn’t up to test standard, neither is Stuart Broad’s bowling.

While he certainly continues to show promise, that is all it is at the moment. A test match average of nearly 50 with 19 wickets in his eleven test matches is not the return that is needed from a front line bowler (for example in his 18 test matches, Simon Jones has taken 59 wickets at 28, while Ryan Sidebottom has 73 wickets in 17 matches). In an England team that needs to bowl a strong South African team out twice, England need to be picking their top performing bowlers, regardless of the other strings to their bows. And while Broad hasn’t been helped by the muddled thinking of the England selectors in choosing his colleagues, his bowling does not justify his positioning the team.

Broad’s batting should only come into the selector’s consideration if he is deemed to be an equal bowler to other alternatives, or he is deemed a good enough batsman to bat in the top 6. Currently there are bowlers available to England who are more likely to take wickets. Broad himself is still learning what type of bowler he is and should be allowed to do this outside of the test match arena.

As tempting as it may be, it is time to ignore the obvious all round talent of Stuart Broad, to allow it to develop at county level so that he can come back as a top class allrounder. Otherwise he may become another talent which was crushed before it was allowed to fulfil itself.

Team England; Consistently Confused

In what can only be described as a bizarre twenty-four hours, Darren Pattinson somehow found himself in the England Test starting XI on Friday of last week. From being consistently stupid to just plain stupid could be one way of describing the situation. Consistency had been the word of the moment whilst England were just about beating New Zealand in two series. Unfortunately consistency had nothing to do with those victories, the limited skill of the opposition played the major role. Whilst players like Paul Collingwood and Tim Ambrose were contributing nothing, they were nevertheless assured of their places and were it not for the return of Andrew Flintoff, Collingwood would undoubtedly still be playing today despite series averages of 32.83 (India (h)), 33.00(Sri Lanka (a)), 40.66 (New Zealand (a)), 10.66 (New Zealand (h)) and 7.00 (South Africa (h)) which is plainly not good enough (cumulative 30.71, HS 66). Michael Vaughan though tells us that the whole squad are disappointed that Collingwood is not in the XI, perhaps because they now fear for their own places given their own dwindling averages. Consistency must be applied, but needs to take into account form.

Nevertheless, the message of consistency indeed vanished for this particular test match, well for the bowlers anyway, but then that always seems to have been the case with the England side of late. Batsmen have all the time in the world, bowlers do not. Darren Pattinson was on Thursday afternoon called up as a replacement for James Anderson should he not be fit for the game. Chris Tremlett, who has been following both the Test and ODI squad around all summer, was already on standby in case Ryan Sidebottom came up short on Friday morning. Friday morning came and Anderson was fit, but Sidebottom was not, in you step… Darren! Utter madness! Whilst the Australian roof tiler, albeit raised for six years in England, has had a good county season with Nottinghamshire so far, he has played just 13 first class games and only 6 of them this season in England. He doesn’t even play his cricket at Headingley, the location of the second test.

I have no problem with the fact that he is a self-confessed Aussie through and through, but the usual pattern is that you are born abroad, move to England, confess your love for the motherland and qualify, rather than move away for two decades, immerse yourself in the culture of another country, then come back for a summer and strike lucky. That may sound harsh, but strike lucky is exactly what Pattinson has done. A quick glance at the first class bowling averages for this season will reveal that Matthew Hoggard (22 at 24.31), Simon Jones (32 at 16.03), Steve Harmison (40 at 23.10) and Jon Lewis (20 at 24.85) are right up there with England’s newest addition who has taken 29 at 20.86. These are proven international and domestic performers who for various reasons were sent back to county cricket to prove their fitness and their form. Not one of those can be accused of not having done that. All of the above, bar Harmison, are swing bowlers. Surely one of them should have been given the chance instead of Pattinson if swing was what England were truly after, rather than shock and awe. Even the likes of Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett, Kabir Ali, and Tim Bresnan must be wondering what the hell is going on.

As for poor old Chris Tremlett, what can you say. If Anderson had been injured Pattinson would have played, if Sidebottom had been injured (which he was) Pattinson would have played. They were the two injury doubts from the end of the first test, so what was the point in dragging Tremlett around the country if he was never going to get a look in? I know that Moores as a Sussex man doesn’t like Hampshire but come on, the guy is missing out on form boosting cricket and is being consistently dealt mental setbacks! To make matters worse it was Morne Morkel, exactly the Tremlett type of bowler, who did best in this test match.

The batting woes were the most apparent problem however. Michael Vaughan has averaged 29.52 since the tour to Sri Lanka. His series averages are 35.83 (Sri Lanka (a)), 20.50 (New Zealand (a)), 50.00 (New Zealand (h)) and 11.00 (South Africa (h)). He is forever searching for form it seems and for every good series he has had recently he seems to have had two bad, which can not be sustained forever. His captaincy may be a major positive of his presence, but he needs to score the runs consistently as well. Alistair Cook seems to have forgotten what a hundred is meanwhile. The last four times that he has passed fifty he has been out before reaching 61. Given that he offered very little against the Australians last time round, England must be getting twitchy about how he will fair against them come this time next year. The current top three looks very samey and pretty weak. Tim Ambrose meanwhile is surely on the brink. It is quite comical to think that if you are out of form you should be stuck higher up the order, in a more pressurised position, against a newer ball. He has averaged just 18.78 in 9 test innings since making his maiden test hundred in his second test in New Zealand. His career average is 27.16 and falling after eleven test innings. Even worse, in ODI’s he has averaged 2.50 in five innings and one of those was a not out! Add in the fumbles and is this really the man to take England forward? You would have to say that England in attempting to find a balance between batting ability and keeping ability have found neither and indeed now have the worst of both worlds.

England’s problems are back to the fore it would seem and they need to act fast. If they are going to persist with a five man attack then quite simply Matt Prior has to play at number six. Otherwise the team looks unbalanced and bottom heavy. Only by playing four bowlers can England afford to play the best wicket keeper at number eight, which means either of Chris Read or James Foster. However, given Read’s little trip to the ICL over the close season I doubt India would welcome his inclusion come this winter’s tour. Foster seems to tick more of the boxes in terms of what England are looking for in their keeper, a batsman who can bat low down the order in limited overs cricket and a glove man who can snaffle all of the chances which come his way in test matches and who can offer a score with the bat. Prior on the other hand is not going to take all of those catches, but he will offer the chance to play five bowlers without embarrassment. What England need to decide is if they want less chances, but more takes, or more chances and less takes, I’m glad I don’t have to make that call.

Let’s end on a positive note however and the continued improvement of James Anderson in test match cricket. It will be Stuart Broad and Ryan Sidebottom who will be jittery about the next England team selection, with support growing for Jones and Harmison, but given recent events anything could happen.