Here is how England's players rated in their second consecutive 3-1 ODI series defeat to New Zealand:
Alastair Cook 4
A sedate 24 during the final ODI showed why Cook should not figure in England's ODI plans until he improves his one-day batting for Essex.
Luke Wright 4
Returning to the opening position he occupied so unsuccessfully in the World Twenty20 last September, Wright proved little more successful this time, lacking the skills to work the ball around. For all the promise of a quick 52 - not coincidentally, when the game reverted to virtually a Twenty20 - the stats - an average of 18 and a strike-rate of 71 - are damning. May, however, be worth perservering with at number seven.
Ian Bell 5
Made starts in virtually every innings, and showed glimpses of why he should be a very good one-day opener. The trouble is, 'glimpses' are no longer good enough and Key, Denly et al will be hopeful of getting a one-day chance soon.
Kevin Pietersen 6
Moving to number three, Pietersen began with a brilliant century, including the phenomenal switch-hitting, but faded terribly in the last four innings. Should England's best batsman be given more responsbility or return to the number five position from which he enjoyed stupendous success? He surely needs at least another series at three before a judgement can be made.
Ravi Bopara 5
Hyped up following a wonderful start to the season, but Bopara looked rather out of his depth at number four, clearly too high. He was also invariably a run-out hazard. He seems inhibited, or maybe is simply not quite skilful enough: he can neither score singles with regularity nor clear the ropes - and has never hit an international six. A series and career strike-rate in the 60s is 20th century, while his bowling, inferior to Wright's and Collingwood's, is almost an irrelevance at international level.
Paul Collingwood 7
Timely return to form with the bat, and some canny bowling underlined his worth to the side. However, the series will be remembered for his part in the run-out incident and his ban for slow-over rates. His captaincy does not always convince - does he have sufficient tactical acumen?
Owais Shah 8
A tremendous series. Shah played some wonderful knocks, from his two-run-a-ball 49 in the first ODI to a pair of classy 60s in the last two games, which could have come to so much more had he had adequate support. In finishing as top series run-scorer, and scoring at over a run-a-ball, he reaffirmed his one-day class. While there is an argument for retaining him at six, such a shrewd ODI operator should surely be given the chance to bat at four.
Tim Ambrose 1
Did almost nothing right, dropping catches and looking hapless with the bat. The England keeper debate rumbles on. It is certain, however, that Ambrose's limited range of shots do not make him the best one-day option.
Graeme Swann 7
Bowled excellently throughout to confirm himself as the number one ODI spinner. As a fine fielder and sometimes dangerous batsman, preferably at nine, he has cemented his place in the side.
Stuart Broad 8
A fine series, with seven cheap wickets and an economy rate of just 3.58. An automatic ODI pick.
Ryan Sidebottom 3
In his three appearances Sidebottom was uncharacteristically out-of-sorts. Still, as a canny left-arm operator, there should still be room for him in, or at least vey close to, the side.
James Anderson 2
There were some good moments, and his performances against McCullum were certainly impressive. Anderson seems to be an integral member of the ODI side but recent showings raise serious questions. In his last 15 ODIs, he averages 51 with an economy rate of over 5.5. Ultimately, he is just too inconsistent.
Dimitri Mascarenhas 6
One game produced a valiant 13-ball 23 and a solitary over, which went for 10. So the Mascarenhas conundrum continues.
Chris Tremlett 7
Is a better first-class than limited-overs bowler but will be very satisfied with his solitary appearance in the series, impressing with his consistency.
The Verdict
After the thrashing meted out to New Zealand in the first game, a comfortable series victory seemed inevitable, and England's one-day future appeared, fleetingly, to be reasonably bright. But brainless batting, above all, saw them lose easily. Players such as Key, Denly, Afzaal and Hildreth should be considered, especially if they can end England's opening woes. England, clearly, have a long, long way to go.
Showing posts with label England-New Zealand 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England-New Zealand 2008. Show all posts
Monday, 30 June 2008
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Twenty20 proves its real worth
There has been much talk of Twenty20 cricket replacing 50 over cricket as the premier one day format. At Chelmsford last night I saw for myself why this is.
The main advantage Twenty20 cricket has over the traditional one day format is its ability to excite. It is not the big hitting, sociable start time, music and other gimmickry, but purely the prospect of a close finish.
This is all I ask from a Twenty20 match. 50 over matches are criticised for producing a winner early, reducing the crowd’s interest in the remainder of the match. As nice as it was watching England hammer New Zealand at Chester-le-Street in the first ODI, the match ceased to be a contest as soon as Brendon McCullum was dismissed. Not a great competitive spectacle.
A poor start to the innings can be turned around in Twenty20, and so it was at Chelmsford last night. Essex started off slowly, losing two wickets for nine runs in the first three overs. Such a poor start would necessitate a rebuilding job in 50 over cricket, but the Eagles continued to play aggressively and set a competitive target of 148.
By racing to 50 for one inside seven overs, reigning champions Kent seemed to be cruising to victory, especially as they are so adept at judging run chases. However, Danish Kaneria dismissed Martin van Jaarsveld with his first ball and the momentum changed.
In essence, the match was enthralling for its entirety and went down to the wire. Few one day games ebb and flow in such a fashion, keeping interest alive throughout. Indeed, close finishes are becoming more common in the Twenty20 cup.
37 matches have been completed this season, with 22 teams winning batting second, 14 by defending a target with one tie. 13 of those successful run chases have climaxed in the final over. Of the 14 final ball finishes in Twenty cup history (excluding ties), four have occurred this season.
This not only proves how likely a tight finish is, but also suggests that teams are improving in the format. Essex’s one run win last night (albeit being with eight needed off the last ball) was the first time a defending team has won by a margin of less than 10 runs this year. If chasing teams get close, they generally reach their target.
All this reflects well on Twenty20 cricket, and as news filtered through of the farcical wet finish between England and New Zealand at Edgbaston, it was hard not to think that the one day future of the game lies in Twenty20.
The main advantage Twenty20 cricket has over the traditional one day format is its ability to excite. It is not the big hitting, sociable start time, music and other gimmickry, but purely the prospect of a close finish.
This is all I ask from a Twenty20 match. 50 over matches are criticised for producing a winner early, reducing the crowd’s interest in the remainder of the match. As nice as it was watching England hammer New Zealand at Chester-le-Street in the first ODI, the match ceased to be a contest as soon as Brendon McCullum was dismissed. Not a great competitive spectacle.
A poor start to the innings can be turned around in Twenty20, and so it was at Chelmsford last night. Essex started off slowly, losing two wickets for nine runs in the first three overs. Such a poor start would necessitate a rebuilding job in 50 over cricket, but the Eagles continued to play aggressively and set a competitive target of 148.
By racing to 50 for one inside seven overs, reigning champions Kent seemed to be cruising to victory, especially as they are so adept at judging run chases. However, Danish Kaneria dismissed Martin van Jaarsveld with his first ball and the momentum changed.
In essence, the match was enthralling for its entirety and went down to the wire. Few one day games ebb and flow in such a fashion, keeping interest alive throughout. Indeed, close finishes are becoming more common in the Twenty20 cup.
37 matches have been completed this season, with 22 teams winning batting second, 14 by defending a target with one tie. 13 of those successful run chases have climaxed in the final over. Of the 14 final ball finishes in Twenty cup history (excluding ties), four have occurred this season.
This not only proves how likely a tight finish is, but also suggests that teams are improving in the format. Essex’s one run win last night (albeit being with eight needed off the last ball) was the first time a defending team has won by a margin of less than 10 runs this year. If chasing teams get close, they generally reach their target.
All this reflects well on Twenty20 cricket, and as news filtered through of the farcical wet finish between England and New Zealand at Edgbaston, it was hard not to think that the one day future of the game lies in Twenty20.
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Pietersen's switch-hit: bad form or just brilliant?
The MCC has ratified Kevin Pietersen's switch-hit – a shot which enabled him to hit two fantastic sixes - but debate still rages within the game over its legality.
Even if the Laws of Cricket do not ban such a shot, questions have been raised as to whether it complies with the spirit of the game. It has been compared to a bowler switching bowling hands just before a delivery, but surely, such individuality and enterprise can only be good for the game?
Cricket does not want to be seen as regressive and stifling of progress, so the ICC will do well to quash the planned review of the switch-hit. Few batsmen will be able to pull off such a shot, and Pietersen's incredible ability allowed him to not only execute it perfectly, but also pick up two maximums in the process.
Scott Styris was the bowler left red-faced, but he could only praise Pietersen, "Sometimes you've just got to take your hat off and say 'well played'. We all admire good cricket and that's what it was. I don't view it in any other light, I don't believe it's against the spirit of the game or anything."
And it is not just natural talent that enabled the self-assured 27-year-old to succeed in such an audacious shot. Pietersen admitted he has "spent many hours in the nets working on it" - and why should that go to waste?
It is fitting that Pietersen, a player who loves to ignore age-old traditions of cricket, should be the one who leads the game forward and his ingenious shot, rather than being treated with cynicism, ought to be cherished.
Even if the Laws of Cricket do not ban such a shot, questions have been raised as to whether it complies with the spirit of the game. It has been compared to a bowler switching bowling hands just before a delivery, but surely, such individuality and enterprise can only be good for the game?
Cricket does not want to be seen as regressive and stifling of progress, so the ICC will do well to quash the planned review of the switch-hit. Few batsmen will be able to pull off such a shot, and Pietersen's incredible ability allowed him to not only execute it perfectly, but also pick up two maximums in the process.
Scott Styris was the bowler left red-faced, but he could only praise Pietersen, "Sometimes you've just got to take your hat off and say 'well played'. We all admire good cricket and that's what it was. I don't view it in any other light, I don't believe it's against the spirit of the game or anything."
And it is not just natural talent that enabled the self-assured 27-year-old to succeed in such an audacious shot. Pietersen admitted he has "spent many hours in the nets working on it" - and why should that go to waste?
It is fitting that Pietersen, a player who loves to ignore age-old traditions of cricket, should be the one who leads the game forward and his ingenious shot, rather than being treated with cynicism, ought to be cherished.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
England getting there at last...but what of Mascarenhas?
Just as the 50-over game is being increasingly overshadowed by Twenty20, England appear to be getting to grips with it. For 15 years from 1992, England were playing an archaic form of the ODI game. Since the partnership between Peter Moores and Paul Collingwood has begun, however, things have palpably improved. England's performance in the first game of this series was exceptional: convincing with bat, ball and in their team selection.
Kevin Pietersen's elevation to number three was probably a couple of years too late. He is such a feared batsmen that it makes sense to give him the maximum time to develop an innings, for all his batting genius at five against South African in 2005. Equally, it means England's top three boasts two genuinely attacking players, in Pietersen and Luke Wright (even if he failed to convince today) and Ian Bell, who is far less one-paced than given credit for and has a vast array of strokes. Dispensing with Alistair Cook, whose strike-rate in the '60s is positively 20th century, is a wise move. The only question in the top three now is whether Wright can transfer his Sussex form into the international arena. So far, he has performed terribly opening and only had success coming in lower down the order, but deserves a full series opening.
Owais Shah's brilliant 49 - off 25 deliveries - was testament to his tremendous talent. However, for all the skill he displayed at six, a batsman of his quality deserves the chance to build an innings from number four. Shah is undeniably supremely talented and, as a wonderful player of spin and a good improviser, should not be kept as low as six, as his 107 at The Oval against India last summer, and a superb 82 in Dambulla, illustrate. Since he has emerged as a vital member of the ODI side - at least the squad - in 2007, he averages 33 with a strike-rate of 80, both fairly impressive figures. Yet on only three occasions has he been allowed to bat even at five, when he averaged 46 against the West Indies. England need to get the most out of Shah, and in batting him as low as six they are failing to do that.
Ravi Bopara endured a traumatic winter but after a phenomenal start to the season for Essex, including 201* in the FP quarter-final, fully deserved a recall. Yet given Shah's superior pedigree at this level it would be prudent to swap their batting positions, moving Bopara down to six.
England's bowling performance was impressive enough too, even if Jimmy Anderson and Ryan Sidebottom were below par. The jigsaw pieces are fitting into place nicely for England's ODI side. They have finally rid their top six of 'plodders' like Cook and Michael Vaughan - Bell, who has often been labeled as one, has a strike-rate of 82 since the start of the India series.
The only real conundrum is how to fit Dimitri Mascarenhas into the side. It is no exaggeration to say there has never been an Englishman able to clear the boundary with such regularity in ODIs. In 30 balls he faced in New Zealand (in Twenty20s and ODIs), seven cleared the rope. And, while his bowling may look little better than that of Collingwood and Wright, an economy rate of 4.4 from his ten ODIs to date is surprisingly effective. England need a man with such six-hitting capacity and destructive ability in their lower order, especially with Wright seemingly set to open. How to fit him in, however, is a problem that can wait while England display such ruthlessness.
Kevin Pietersen's elevation to number three was probably a couple of years too late. He is such a feared batsmen that it makes sense to give him the maximum time to develop an innings, for all his batting genius at five against South African in 2005. Equally, it means England's top three boasts two genuinely attacking players, in Pietersen and Luke Wright (even if he failed to convince today) and Ian Bell, who is far less one-paced than given credit for and has a vast array of strokes. Dispensing with Alistair Cook, whose strike-rate in the '60s is positively 20th century, is a wise move. The only question in the top three now is whether Wright can transfer his Sussex form into the international arena. So far, he has performed terribly opening and only had success coming in lower down the order, but deserves a full series opening.
Owais Shah's brilliant 49 - off 25 deliveries - was testament to his tremendous talent. However, for all the skill he displayed at six, a batsman of his quality deserves the chance to build an innings from number four. Shah is undeniably supremely talented and, as a wonderful player of spin and a good improviser, should not be kept as low as six, as his 107 at The Oval against India last summer, and a superb 82 in Dambulla, illustrate. Since he has emerged as a vital member of the ODI side - at least the squad - in 2007, he averages 33 with a strike-rate of 80, both fairly impressive figures. Yet on only three occasions has he been allowed to bat even at five, when he averaged 46 against the West Indies. England need to get the most out of Shah, and in batting him as low as six they are failing to do that.
Ravi Bopara endured a traumatic winter but after a phenomenal start to the season for Essex, including 201* in the FP quarter-final, fully deserved a recall. Yet given Shah's superior pedigree at this level it would be prudent to swap their batting positions, moving Bopara down to six.
England's bowling performance was impressive enough too, even if Jimmy Anderson and Ryan Sidebottom were below par. The jigsaw pieces are fitting into place nicely for England's ODI side. They have finally rid their top six of 'plodders' like Cook and Michael Vaughan - Bell, who has often been labeled as one, has a strike-rate of 82 since the start of the India series.
The only real conundrum is how to fit Dimitri Mascarenhas into the side. It is no exaggeration to say there has never been an Englishman able to clear the boundary with such regularity in ODIs. In 30 balls he faced in New Zealand (in Twenty20s and ODIs), seven cleared the rope. And, while his bowling may look little better than that of Collingwood and Wright, an economy rate of 4.4 from his ten ODIs to date is surprisingly effective. England need a man with such six-hitting capacity and destructive ability in their lower order, especially with Wright seemingly set to open. How to fit him in, however, is a problem that can wait while England display such ruthlessness.
Sunday, 8 June 2008
England Series Ratings
Here are the series ratings for England's 2-0 win over New Zealand:
Alastair Cook 5
Another disappointing series. Cook needs to work on his off-stump weakness and his penchant for falling lbw if he is to improve on his recent record of one century in 12 Tests.
Andrew Strauss 9
Has responded superbly to his break from the side, playing with discipline and selectivity - and, pleasingly, being less wary of hitting the ball down the ground than before. But the South Africa series will show us whether he's really back to his best.
Michael Vaughan 6
Vaughan's Lord's hundred was sublime, although he rather faded thereafter. His captaincy was also impressive - though New Zealand's frail batting made his job rather easier.
Kevin Pietersen 7
As in New Zealand, he made a match-defining century in the last game of the season as England recovered from an ignominious position. But he would like to forget his problems against Daniel Vettori.
Ian Bell 2
A miserable series comprising three first-innings failures. Bell's talent is undeniable but being dropped may be in his, as well as his side's, best interests.
Paul Collingwood 2
No one doubts his commitment, but fundamentally his form is so wretched that he cannot survive much longer. His shoulder injury, rendering his bowling less effective, further diminishes his worth. It may be in his best interests to have the shoulder operation sooner rather than later.
Tim Ambrose 6
Ambrose kept superbly throughout and made a vital 67 in the third Test. South Africa's quicks will pose a big test, and Matt Prior is palpably a better batsman, but, for now, Ambrose appears to offer the best keeper-batsman combination England have.
Stuart Broad 6
Broad's calm, assured and skilled batting at number eight currently seem more valuable than his bowling. A bowling average of 43 is a poor return - while he has promise, he bowls too many 'four balls' and when (if?) Flintoff returns he may be the one to go. For all his batting qualities and clear relish for international cricket, Broad is not yet amongst England's three best pace bowlers.
Ryan Sidebottom 7
The exemplary stats - 17 wickets at 20 - conceal the fact he was much less consistently threatening than in New Zealand. Still, few will be complaining after another fine series.
Monty Panesar 6
Essentially anonymous for all but one afternoon, Panesar bowled a superb spell at Old Trafford that turned the tide of the series. As has been said ad nauseam, he needs more variations to threaten on flat wickets.
James Anderson 8
Mr Enigma can be happy with two good games out of three, even if he was disconcertingly wayward at Old Trafford, going for six an over in the first innings. He was devastating in the Third Test but many still need to be convinced he can provide a consistent threat over a whole series.
The Verdict
All is not as well with the England side as this ultimately facile win, and five Tests with unchanged personnel, would have you believe. We should not forget that England looked set to be humiliated at Old Trafford and were 86/5 at Trent Bridge. Their response to precarious situations was certainly commendable, but they should never have found themselves in these positions against such modest opposition. Both Bell and Collingwood should now be dropped - probably for Owais Shah and, after his superlative start to the season, Ravi Bopara. The seamers face a stern test against South Africa's strong batting line-up, but it is heartening to see the number of quicks challenging for spots - Chris Tremlett, Steve Harmison, Andrew Flintoff - if he can ever stay fit - and now, it would seem, a resurgent Simon Jones.
Alastair Cook 5
Another disappointing series. Cook needs to work on his off-stump weakness and his penchant for falling lbw if he is to improve on his recent record of one century in 12 Tests.
Andrew Strauss 9
Has responded superbly to his break from the side, playing with discipline and selectivity - and, pleasingly, being less wary of hitting the ball down the ground than before. But the South Africa series will show us whether he's really back to his best.
Michael Vaughan 6
Vaughan's Lord's hundred was sublime, although he rather faded thereafter. His captaincy was also impressive - though New Zealand's frail batting made his job rather easier.
Kevin Pietersen 7
As in New Zealand, he made a match-defining century in the last game of the season as England recovered from an ignominious position. But he would like to forget his problems against Daniel Vettori.
Ian Bell 2
A miserable series comprising three first-innings failures. Bell's talent is undeniable but being dropped may be in his, as well as his side's, best interests.
Paul Collingwood 2
No one doubts his commitment, but fundamentally his form is so wretched that he cannot survive much longer. His shoulder injury, rendering his bowling less effective, further diminishes his worth. It may be in his best interests to have the shoulder operation sooner rather than later.
Tim Ambrose 6
Ambrose kept superbly throughout and made a vital 67 in the third Test. South Africa's quicks will pose a big test, and Matt Prior is palpably a better batsman, but, for now, Ambrose appears to offer the best keeper-batsman combination England have.
Stuart Broad 6
Broad's calm, assured and skilled batting at number eight currently seem more valuable than his bowling. A bowling average of 43 is a poor return - while he has promise, he bowls too many 'four balls' and when (if?) Flintoff returns he may be the one to go. For all his batting qualities and clear relish for international cricket, Broad is not yet amongst England's three best pace bowlers.
Ryan Sidebottom 7
The exemplary stats - 17 wickets at 20 - conceal the fact he was much less consistently threatening than in New Zealand. Still, few will be complaining after another fine series.
Monty Panesar 6
Essentially anonymous for all but one afternoon, Panesar bowled a superb spell at Old Trafford that turned the tide of the series. As has been said ad nauseam, he needs more variations to threaten on flat wickets.
James Anderson 8
Mr Enigma can be happy with two good games out of three, even if he was disconcertingly wayward at Old Trafford, going for six an over in the first innings. He was devastating in the Third Test but many still need to be convinced he can provide a consistent threat over a whole series.
The Verdict
All is not as well with the England side as this ultimately facile win, and five Tests with unchanged personnel, would have you believe. We should not forget that England looked set to be humiliated at Old Trafford and were 86/5 at Trent Bridge. Their response to precarious situations was certainly commendable, but they should never have found themselves in these positions against such modest opposition. Both Bell and Collingwood should now be dropped - probably for Owais Shah and, after his superlative start to the season, Ravi Bopara. The seamers face a stern test against South Africa's strong batting line-up, but it is heartening to see the number of quicks challenging for spots - Chris Tremlett, Steve Harmison, Andrew Flintoff - if he can ever stay fit - and now, it would seem, a resurgent Simon Jones.
Friday, 30 May 2008
Prior Knowledge
The England ODI side to face New Zealand in one Twenty20 International and five ODI’s is announced later on today. It is rumoured that there is to be a surprise or two. After reviewing the Friends Provident Trophy matches so far this season, I have tried to identify who is deserving of a place in the side.
The first surprise is that Andrew Strauss is being considered for a recall. Whilst Strauss has clearly worked hard to reinvent himself and is deservedly reaping the benefits, there is no doubt that he is not what England need in the ODI arena, especially given the rise of whiz bang cricket and ever higher run rates. Strauss would be best left to focus on Test cricket and constructing solid innings as in the last Test match. He plays best when he isn’t under pressure to score. From this readers could be forgiven for assuming that Alistair Cook would be my pick at the top. Sorry again. Whilst Strauss isn’t going to be taking Cook’s place, somebody else will! Alistair Cook, very much like Strauss, plays best when not under pressure to score. Neither are Marcus Trescothick and playing them in the hope that they one day will be is sheer foolishness. And a Trescothick is exactly what England need up at the top of the order. Cook tried initially, but looked unnatural and kept on getting out attempting to hit over the top. Then he played his way, which brought more runs, but did nothing for the run rate in comparative terms. His first ODI hundred against India at The Rose Bowl was indicative of Cook’s problem. Whilst he did compile a brilliant innings, England could have unleashed the fury much earlier in the match, but Cook was seemingly unable to do so. Indeed, Ian Bell, his partner in crime, was able to do so to a greater extent. Once again England fell short of the mammoth score which they should have made. Of course, it wasn’t a problem in that particular game, but it could well be in the future.
England have also tried to replace Trescothick, most recently with Phil Mustard, who has also taken over the wicket keeping duties, with limited success. Mustard came to prominence during Durham’s run to the Friends Provident Final last season, which ultimately culminated in them winning their first trophy. His exciting brand of cricket was compared to Adam Gilchrist, always the bench mark for a wicket keeper it seems, no matter how unfair. At international level though, and I say this after his limited appearances, he doesn’t appear to be able to convert starts in to the bigger fifties and hundreds which win matches and are the backbone of any limited overs side. His form in domestic cricket this year has also been far from impressive, as those of us with him in our fantasy sides can testify! Jeremy Coney, after his first sighting of Mustard, described him as a leg side bully. It is hard to disagree at times, although he clearly has more to his game than this. Ultimately though, after ten matches, he is averaging 23.30, with only a solitary fifty to his name.
The change which I therefore wish to see and which looks increasingly likely, is the recall of Matt Prior to the ODI side. Whether this be as wicket keeper or not doesn’t really bother me. He clearly has the ability with the bat to cope as a top six batsmen. Whilst he too only averages 22.90 after his return to the side last year, scoring the one fifty, he is without doubt a better batsman than Mustard. He averages 40.14 in Test cricket and is so far the leading scorer in First Class cricket this season, with 473 runs at an average of 67. He has only failed to pass fifty once in fact and in Sussex’s most recent game scored both a hundred and fifty, whilst nobody else was able to even get past forty. His efforts won the game. That record clearly deserves rewarding. What of his wicket keeping though? Well, it is often the unreported facet of the game. Without being there it is hard to judge. Some reports suggest improvement and this would be understandable, away from the scrutiny and pressure of the international arena. In his favour is that he played well as the keeper for England in limited overs cricket and did not make the same volume of mistakes as in Test match cricket, mistakes for which he was rightly dropped. His keeping will need to be at a much higher level before he returns to Test cricket. However, a return to the ODI side will enable him to ease his way back in, set about keeping successfully through fifty overs, rather than two hundred or more over five days.
If Prior is to come in for Mustard, then I may well bat him down the order, where he operates so well for Sussex. He could also open of course, a position he has yet to convince in at international level. Vikram Solanki is the only other real candidate for the opening role, yet he has been in and out of the side over so many years that I doubt he will be selected, despite his excellent limited overs form. My definite opener would be Ian Bell as I feel he is the player England should look to, to bat through the innings. His best ODI innings for my mind was against Australia when he opened. His promotion would allow Kevin Pietersen to bat at number three, where he could better dictate the game for England. This could be the fresh change with Pietersen needs in order to reinvigorate his own game and focus on his strength, being positive. At four would come Owais Shah, as I believe that too much of his ability against spin is lost down at number six, plus England now have better options down the order. Usman Afzaal and Samit Patel could also be in contention for this position in the future, given their impressive allround performances for their counties in the FP Trophy thus far this season.
Five would be the captain, Paul Collingwood, in his familiar role. At six I would have Ravi Bopara who is enjoying a good start to the season. At seven would be Luke Wright (if Prior were to open, it may be worth swapping the two around at some point), as he has so far played his best cricket for England at the death. Eight would be Andrew Flintoff when he returns, until then Dimi Mascarenhas would be a sound choice and the only near replacement which England really have. Nine would be the ever improving Stuart Broad, who looks more at home in the ODI side than the Test team. Ten would be the ever reliable Ryan Sidebottom.
The batting depth of this side would allow England to play Monty Panesar at number eleven should he develop more variety. It can be argued though that he needs the experience of playing in order to develop that variety. His rivals are Graeme Swann, Adil Rahsid and James Tredwell, all of whom could comfortably bat at number nine, or possibly higher if required. For me, building for the next World Cup and given his success against New Zealand thus far, I would choose Panesar, with Rashid as the second spinner.
James Anderson would be the standby seamer and could also play instead of Mascarenhas until Flintoff’s return if deemed necessary. He is still far too inconsistent though and that is why he does not make the final XI. Even in Test match cricket he still bowls a lot of four balls and doesn’t seem to be able to maintain consistent pressure on the batsmen.
I believe that England are working their way towards building a successful and positive limited overs side. The introduction of more positive players has led to an improvement and will continue to do so.
THE XI:
Ian Bell
Matt Prior (wk)
Kevin Pietersen
Owais Shah
Paul Collingwood (c)
Ravi Bopara
Luke Wright
Andrew Flintoff (Mascarenhas)
Stuart Broad
Ryan Sidebottom (Anderson)
Monty Panesar
The Reserves:
James Anderson
Adil Rashid
Dimitri Mascarenhas
Alistair Cook
The first surprise is that Andrew Strauss is being considered for a recall. Whilst Strauss has clearly worked hard to reinvent himself and is deservedly reaping the benefits, there is no doubt that he is not what England need in the ODI arena, especially given the rise of whiz bang cricket and ever higher run rates. Strauss would be best left to focus on Test cricket and constructing solid innings as in the last Test match. He plays best when he isn’t under pressure to score. From this readers could be forgiven for assuming that Alistair Cook would be my pick at the top. Sorry again. Whilst Strauss isn’t going to be taking Cook’s place, somebody else will! Alistair Cook, very much like Strauss, plays best when not under pressure to score. Neither are Marcus Trescothick and playing them in the hope that they one day will be is sheer foolishness. And a Trescothick is exactly what England need up at the top of the order. Cook tried initially, but looked unnatural and kept on getting out attempting to hit over the top. Then he played his way, which brought more runs, but did nothing for the run rate in comparative terms. His first ODI hundred against India at The Rose Bowl was indicative of Cook’s problem. Whilst he did compile a brilliant innings, England could have unleashed the fury much earlier in the match, but Cook was seemingly unable to do so. Indeed, Ian Bell, his partner in crime, was able to do so to a greater extent. Once again England fell short of the mammoth score which they should have made. Of course, it wasn’t a problem in that particular game, but it could well be in the future.
England have also tried to replace Trescothick, most recently with Phil Mustard, who has also taken over the wicket keeping duties, with limited success. Mustard came to prominence during Durham’s run to the Friends Provident Final last season, which ultimately culminated in them winning their first trophy. His exciting brand of cricket was compared to Adam Gilchrist, always the bench mark for a wicket keeper it seems, no matter how unfair. At international level though, and I say this after his limited appearances, he doesn’t appear to be able to convert starts in to the bigger fifties and hundreds which win matches and are the backbone of any limited overs side. His form in domestic cricket this year has also been far from impressive, as those of us with him in our fantasy sides can testify! Jeremy Coney, after his first sighting of Mustard, described him as a leg side bully. It is hard to disagree at times, although he clearly has more to his game than this. Ultimately though, after ten matches, he is averaging 23.30, with only a solitary fifty to his name.
The change which I therefore wish to see and which looks increasingly likely, is the recall of Matt Prior to the ODI side. Whether this be as wicket keeper or not doesn’t really bother me. He clearly has the ability with the bat to cope as a top six batsmen. Whilst he too only averages 22.90 after his return to the side last year, scoring the one fifty, he is without doubt a better batsman than Mustard. He averages 40.14 in Test cricket and is so far the leading scorer in First Class cricket this season, with 473 runs at an average of 67. He has only failed to pass fifty once in fact and in Sussex’s most recent game scored both a hundred and fifty, whilst nobody else was able to even get past forty. His efforts won the game. That record clearly deserves rewarding. What of his wicket keeping though? Well, it is often the unreported facet of the game. Without being there it is hard to judge. Some reports suggest improvement and this would be understandable, away from the scrutiny and pressure of the international arena. In his favour is that he played well as the keeper for England in limited overs cricket and did not make the same volume of mistakes as in Test match cricket, mistakes for which he was rightly dropped. His keeping will need to be at a much higher level before he returns to Test cricket. However, a return to the ODI side will enable him to ease his way back in, set about keeping successfully through fifty overs, rather than two hundred or more over five days.
If Prior is to come in for Mustard, then I may well bat him down the order, where he operates so well for Sussex. He could also open of course, a position he has yet to convince in at international level. Vikram Solanki is the only other real candidate for the opening role, yet he has been in and out of the side over so many years that I doubt he will be selected, despite his excellent limited overs form. My definite opener would be Ian Bell as I feel he is the player England should look to, to bat through the innings. His best ODI innings for my mind was against Australia when he opened. His promotion would allow Kevin Pietersen to bat at number three, where he could better dictate the game for England. This could be the fresh change with Pietersen needs in order to reinvigorate his own game and focus on his strength, being positive. At four would come Owais Shah, as I believe that too much of his ability against spin is lost down at number six, plus England now have better options down the order. Usman Afzaal and Samit Patel could also be in contention for this position in the future, given their impressive allround performances for their counties in the FP Trophy thus far this season.
Five would be the captain, Paul Collingwood, in his familiar role. At six I would have Ravi Bopara who is enjoying a good start to the season. At seven would be Luke Wright (if Prior were to open, it may be worth swapping the two around at some point), as he has so far played his best cricket for England at the death. Eight would be Andrew Flintoff when he returns, until then Dimi Mascarenhas would be a sound choice and the only near replacement which England really have. Nine would be the ever improving Stuart Broad, who looks more at home in the ODI side than the Test team. Ten would be the ever reliable Ryan Sidebottom.
The batting depth of this side would allow England to play Monty Panesar at number eleven should he develop more variety. It can be argued though that he needs the experience of playing in order to develop that variety. His rivals are Graeme Swann, Adil Rahsid and James Tredwell, all of whom could comfortably bat at number nine, or possibly higher if required. For me, building for the next World Cup and given his success against New Zealand thus far, I would choose Panesar, with Rashid as the second spinner.
James Anderson would be the standby seamer and could also play instead of Mascarenhas until Flintoff’s return if deemed necessary. He is still far too inconsistent though and that is why he does not make the final XI. Even in Test match cricket he still bowls a lot of four balls and doesn’t seem to be able to maintain consistent pressure on the batsmen.
I believe that England are working their way towards building a successful and positive limited overs side. The introduction of more positive players has led to an improvement and will continue to do so.
THE XI:
Ian Bell
Matt Prior (wk)
Kevin Pietersen
Owais Shah
Paul Collingwood (c)
Ravi Bopara
Luke Wright
Andrew Flintoff (Mascarenhas)
Stuart Broad
Ryan Sidebottom (Anderson)
Monty Panesar
The Reserves:
James Anderson
Adil Rashid
Dimitri Mascarenhas
Alistair Cook
Doing Geoff Miller's job
With the One Day series around the corner, it’s selection time again. New Zealand are one of the better One Day teams in world cricket and showed that they are a tough nut to crack during the winter. However, England’s two previous series were wins against India and away to Sri Lanka, so the home team can also take some comfort in recent form.
Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones have not been considered for selection as they continue their recoveries from injury. Otherwise, recent form is a strong factor in the selection of this 15 man squad.
Top Order Batting
The top order should contain one anchorman with the rest being strokeplayers. The England team has plenty of strength in depth with batting due to the number of all-rounders available. Therefore, a more aggressive approach can be taken at the start of the innings. The role of anchorman has been taken in recent games by Ali Cook and Ian Bell (normally in the same match). Both make my squad, but on the understanding that only one will play in a match. The wicket keeper should also be considered to be a top order batsman and with Kevin Pietersen coming in at four, the other specialist batsman should come in at three. Holding onto his place will be Owais Shah, and just seeing off the challenge of his Surrey teammate James Benning for the reserve slot is Usman Afzaal who has had a magnificent FP Trophy.
Middle Order Batting/ Allrounders
Paul Collingwood should continue to captain the side. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that his best moment in the test was when he went into One Day mode to finish the game before the tea interval. Also in the team, primarily as batsmen but possibly to share 20 overs with Collingwood, should be Ravi Bopara and Luke Wright both of whom again are scoring a lot of runs. Sharing 20 overs between batting allrounders may be a risky strategy, so bowling all rounders Tim Bresnan and Dimi Mascarenhas are also be selected
Wicket Keeper
Phil Mustard hasn’t done anything in wrong in the last two series. He’s just not really done anything of note either with just the one fifty in ten matches. Tim Ambrose is also clearly a capable batsman and excellent keeper but with a technique which could be found wanting at the top of the order. Matt Prior is the batsman in form in county cricket as a whole and despite an even more indifferent start to his One Day career than Mustard, he is worthy of another chance and gets the nod here.
Bowling
Graeme Swann is the man in possession and has shown himself to be a good attacking One Day bowler and a better option in this form of the game than Monty Panesar. The three pace bowlers also pick themselves, with only two likely to be used in any match. Ryan Sidebottom and Stuart Broad are the ones likely to make the team, with James Anderson as the reserve bowler and Bresnan providing further cover.
The Squad
Ian Bell
Matt Prior
Owais Shah
Kevin Pietersen
Paul Collingwood
Ravi Bopara
Luke Wright
Tim Bresnan
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Ryan Sidebottom
Ali Cook
Usman Afzaal
Dimitri Mascarenhas
James Anderson
Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones have not been considered for selection as they continue their recoveries from injury. Otherwise, recent form is a strong factor in the selection of this 15 man squad.
Top Order Batting
The top order should contain one anchorman with the rest being strokeplayers. The England team has plenty of strength in depth with batting due to the number of all-rounders available. Therefore, a more aggressive approach can be taken at the start of the innings. The role of anchorman has been taken in recent games by Ali Cook and Ian Bell (normally in the same match). Both make my squad, but on the understanding that only one will play in a match. The wicket keeper should also be considered to be a top order batsman and with Kevin Pietersen coming in at four, the other specialist batsman should come in at three. Holding onto his place will be Owais Shah, and just seeing off the challenge of his Surrey teammate James Benning for the reserve slot is Usman Afzaal who has had a magnificent FP Trophy.
Middle Order Batting/ Allrounders
Paul Collingwood should continue to captain the side. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that his best moment in the test was when he went into One Day mode to finish the game before the tea interval. Also in the team, primarily as batsmen but possibly to share 20 overs with Collingwood, should be Ravi Bopara and Luke Wright both of whom again are scoring a lot of runs. Sharing 20 overs between batting allrounders may be a risky strategy, so bowling all rounders Tim Bresnan and Dimi Mascarenhas are also be selected
Wicket Keeper
Phil Mustard hasn’t done anything in wrong in the last two series. He’s just not really done anything of note either with just the one fifty in ten matches. Tim Ambrose is also clearly a capable batsman and excellent keeper but with a technique which could be found wanting at the top of the order. Matt Prior is the batsman in form in county cricket as a whole and despite an even more indifferent start to his One Day career than Mustard, he is worthy of another chance and gets the nod here.
Bowling
Graeme Swann is the man in possession and has shown himself to be a good attacking One Day bowler and a better option in this form of the game than Monty Panesar. The three pace bowlers also pick themselves, with only two likely to be used in any match. Ryan Sidebottom and Stuart Broad are the ones likely to make the team, with James Anderson as the reserve bowler and Bresnan providing further cover.
The Squad
Ian Bell
Matt Prior
Owais Shah
Kevin Pietersen
Paul Collingwood
Ravi Bopara
Luke Wright
Tim Bresnan
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Ryan Sidebottom
Ali Cook
Usman Afzaal
Dimitri Mascarenhas
James Anderson
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Panesar's progress
Monty Panesar has had an amazing impact as both a player and a personality in his relatively short Test career. With his excellent bowling, his exuberant wicket celebrations and sometimes comical fielding it is little wonder that cricket fans, particularly those who support England, have taken him to their hearts. But how good is Panesar as a Test cricketer?
In my view Panesar is a wonderfully gifted bowler, who has already shown himself to be a match-winner, and who can become great if he continues to learn and improve his game. It is fair to say that his batting and fielding are distinctly average, though he has progressed in these disciplines after being laughably poor at the start of his Test career. How much he can improve in them is a matter of conjecture, though with his spirit and willingness to work there is no reason why he can't make himself a decent fielder and show good resistance in his batting. But it is as a bowler that Panesar shows his cricketing class.
Starting his Test career in India, arguably the hardest of all places for a spinner, Panesar showed good heart and no little skill. He claimed some notable wickets, including that of the legendary Tendulkar. Under the heat and pressure of his first series Panesar fell away towards the end, but showed enough to know that England had a rare talent on their hands.
Panesar followed this up with two excellent series' at home against Sri Lanka and Pakistan, taking 10 and 17 wickets, respectively. This was significant because it showed that Panesar could be a match-winner, that he could bowl well against top players of spin and that he could handle the pressure of his home crowd's expectations.
On a high after these 7 successful Tests at home Panesar had every right to believe he would have a crack at the Australians, as England looked to defend the Ashes in the lion's den. Instead, in one of the most foolish of many foolish moves by the England management on that tour, Panesar was dropped in favour of Ashley Giles. By the time Panesar was recalled England were 2-0 down in the series, having just capitulated at Adelaide, a pitch that Pansesar would have loved to bowl on.
Thrown into the action on a bouncy Perth wicket Panesar bowled brilliantly, claiming 5 for 92 in the first innings. Sadly, this wonderful effort was wasted as England failed to get the big first innings lead they so desperately needed and the match was lost as the Australians obliterated England's bowling in their second innings. Panesar still managed to get 3 wickets in the second innings, despite being targetted by the Australian batsmen. The series was lost and Panesar's efforts, like England's, tailed off in a series that ended in a 5-0 humiliation.
Far from suffering any signs of shell-shock after such a heavy defeat, Panesar bounced back in the next series at home against the West Indies. He took 23 wickets @18.69 in just 4 matches, claiming the player of the series award. It is true to say that the West Indies were a weak Test team, but their batting line-up still included Gayle, Sarwan, Chanderpaul and Bravo, all good Test batsmen. It is also worth remembering that Panesar had only played 13 Tests at the time and would be rightly considered to be still learning his trade. To so dominate an international side was a great achievement for a young bowler. It also showed that Panesar could bowl consistently well through out a series.
After his most successful series Panesar faced the most difficult time of his Test career, when there would be unbelievable calls for him to be dropped. It was at home against a resurgent India that things started to go wrong. In fairness, though, Panesar's problems in that series, which England lost 1-0, were mirrored by most of the other England bowlers. He still managed to claim 8 wickets and only really failed at the Oval, which was a bore draw on a ridiculous batting paradise, where even Kumble was able to score a chanceless century.
The next series was a forbidding trip to Sri Lanka, against a team who thrived on home soil and who had the best bowler in the world in their ranks, the incomparable Muttiah Muralitharan. To compare Panesar to such an all-time great as Murali is unfair in the extreme, but that is what happened in the hype leading up to the start of the series. Clearly the Sri Lankan batsmen had targetted Panesar as England's danger man and they attacked him from the start. Early on, though, Panesar bowled well and took wickets, but as the series wore on he struggled more and more.
Unable to take enough wickets against such wonderful players of spin, Panesar started to fiddle with his game and lost some of his confidence. The Sri Lankans dominated England and Panesar could not make the breakthroughs he would have expected to. His economy rate was still good, but the Sri Lankans batted patiently against him, accumulating winning totals. It was a lesson for Panesar on what was only his third tour, all of which had been to places where England traditionally struggled. He certainly did not disgrace himself, though like in India before his performances tailed away, suggesting that he still needed to work on his stamina to keep bowling long spells in the heat and humidity.
Finally, against a relatively weak New Zealand, Panesar regained his verve and form, taking 11 wickets in generally seam friendly conditions on England's tour. He has followed that up with 9 wickets in two matches in the current home Test series against the Kiwis, including a man of the match winning, Test best 6 for 37 at Old Trafford just two days ago.
Those who were writing Panesar off should note that he has taken 101 Test wickets in just 28 Tests, including the tough tours of India, Australia and Sri Lanka. It is also revealing to compare Panesar's record after 28 Tests to that of Warne and Muralitharan at the same stage in their careers. Warne had by then established himself as a match winner for the dominating Australians, but had still only taken 125 wickets @24.35, much better than Panesar, but still not out of sight. Interestingly, Warne had only had 6 five wicket hauls to Panesar's 8, with both of them having had one 10 wicket haul. Murali, however, had only taken 107 wickets @30.64, with 7 five wicket hauls, a very similar record to Panesar after 28 matches.
Now, I am not going to say that Panesar will go on to be anywhere near as great as these two legends. For a start he is a finger spinner and does not have the mystique that surrounds Murali and Warne, nor the variety of wicket-taking deliveries. What I will say is that Panesar should improve and continue to take a lot of wickets for England. That he is a proven match-winner already and that it would be foolish in the extreme to consider dropping him unless his form dips alarmingly for an extended period of time, not just a handful of matches.
In my view Panesar is a wonderfully gifted bowler, who has already shown himself to be a match-winner, and who can become great if he continues to learn and improve his game. It is fair to say that his batting and fielding are distinctly average, though he has progressed in these disciplines after being laughably poor at the start of his Test career. How much he can improve in them is a matter of conjecture, though with his spirit and willingness to work there is no reason why he can't make himself a decent fielder and show good resistance in his batting. But it is as a bowler that Panesar shows his cricketing class.
Starting his Test career in India, arguably the hardest of all places for a spinner, Panesar showed good heart and no little skill. He claimed some notable wickets, including that of the legendary Tendulkar. Under the heat and pressure of his first series Panesar fell away towards the end, but showed enough to know that England had a rare talent on their hands.
Panesar followed this up with two excellent series' at home against Sri Lanka and Pakistan, taking 10 and 17 wickets, respectively. This was significant because it showed that Panesar could be a match-winner, that he could bowl well against top players of spin and that he could handle the pressure of his home crowd's expectations.
On a high after these 7 successful Tests at home Panesar had every right to believe he would have a crack at the Australians, as England looked to defend the Ashes in the lion's den. Instead, in one of the most foolish of many foolish moves by the England management on that tour, Panesar was dropped in favour of Ashley Giles. By the time Panesar was recalled England were 2-0 down in the series, having just capitulated at Adelaide, a pitch that Pansesar would have loved to bowl on.
Thrown into the action on a bouncy Perth wicket Panesar bowled brilliantly, claiming 5 for 92 in the first innings. Sadly, this wonderful effort was wasted as England failed to get the big first innings lead they so desperately needed and the match was lost as the Australians obliterated England's bowling in their second innings. Panesar still managed to get 3 wickets in the second innings, despite being targetted by the Australian batsmen. The series was lost and Panesar's efforts, like England's, tailed off in a series that ended in a 5-0 humiliation.
Far from suffering any signs of shell-shock after such a heavy defeat, Panesar bounced back in the next series at home against the West Indies. He took 23 wickets @18.69 in just 4 matches, claiming the player of the series award. It is true to say that the West Indies were a weak Test team, but their batting line-up still included Gayle, Sarwan, Chanderpaul and Bravo, all good Test batsmen. It is also worth remembering that Panesar had only played 13 Tests at the time and would be rightly considered to be still learning his trade. To so dominate an international side was a great achievement for a young bowler. It also showed that Panesar could bowl consistently well through out a series.
After his most successful series Panesar faced the most difficult time of his Test career, when there would be unbelievable calls for him to be dropped. It was at home against a resurgent India that things started to go wrong. In fairness, though, Panesar's problems in that series, which England lost 1-0, were mirrored by most of the other England bowlers. He still managed to claim 8 wickets and only really failed at the Oval, which was a bore draw on a ridiculous batting paradise, where even Kumble was able to score a chanceless century.
The next series was a forbidding trip to Sri Lanka, against a team who thrived on home soil and who had the best bowler in the world in their ranks, the incomparable Muttiah Muralitharan. To compare Panesar to such an all-time great as Murali is unfair in the extreme, but that is what happened in the hype leading up to the start of the series. Clearly the Sri Lankan batsmen had targetted Panesar as England's danger man and they attacked him from the start. Early on, though, Panesar bowled well and took wickets, but as the series wore on he struggled more and more.
Unable to take enough wickets against such wonderful players of spin, Panesar started to fiddle with his game and lost some of his confidence. The Sri Lankans dominated England and Panesar could not make the breakthroughs he would have expected to. His economy rate was still good, but the Sri Lankans batted patiently against him, accumulating winning totals. It was a lesson for Panesar on what was only his third tour, all of which had been to places where England traditionally struggled. He certainly did not disgrace himself, though like in India before his performances tailed away, suggesting that he still needed to work on his stamina to keep bowling long spells in the heat and humidity.
Finally, against a relatively weak New Zealand, Panesar regained his verve and form, taking 11 wickets in generally seam friendly conditions on England's tour. He has followed that up with 9 wickets in two matches in the current home Test series against the Kiwis, including a man of the match winning, Test best 6 for 37 at Old Trafford just two days ago.
Those who were writing Panesar off should note that he has taken 101 Test wickets in just 28 Tests, including the tough tours of India, Australia and Sri Lanka. It is also revealing to compare Panesar's record after 28 Tests to that of Warne and Muralitharan at the same stage in their careers. Warne had by then established himself as a match winner for the dominating Australians, but had still only taken 125 wickets @24.35, much better than Panesar, but still not out of sight. Interestingly, Warne had only had 6 five wicket hauls to Panesar's 8, with both of them having had one 10 wicket haul. Murali, however, had only taken 107 wickets @30.64, with 7 five wicket hauls, a very similar record to Panesar after 28 matches.
Now, I am not going to say that Panesar will go on to be anywhere near as great as these two legends. For a start he is a finger spinner and does not have the mystique that surrounds Murali and Warne, nor the variety of wicket-taking deliveries. What I will say is that Panesar should improve and continue to take a lot of wickets for England. That he is a proven match-winner already and that it would be foolish in the extreme to consider dropping him unless his form dips alarmingly for an extended period of time, not just a handful of matches.
Sunday, 25 May 2008
What to do from here?
How many times have we said that recently? The first 5-0 Ashes defeat for over 80 years? Failing to win a live game against a major Test-playing nation at the World Cup? Losing at home to India? Getting bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka? Being timidity personified in Hamilton against an admirable but not overly threatening attack, against whom England batted for 173 overs, but scored at a soporofic two-an-over, and then subsiding pathetically in the second innings for 110? Coming on the back of New Zealand being decimated by the IPl and ICL, to whom they essentialy lost half their side including their most valuable player, Shane Bond, that would take some beating.
And yet England have managed it. Scrapping over the follow-on target against the Kiwis at Old Trafford was just about as depressing as it comes. Dan Vettori has bowled with mesmerising guile (much better in fact, than he bowled in New Zealand), while Ian O'Brien has been fantastic. But England have been diffident and pathetic, showing no inclination to hit bowlers off their rhythm, allowing themselves to be trapped in their crease meekly, barely able to hit a run and just wait for their inevitable dismissals. If New Zealand have been fantastic, it is in large part because they have been allowed to be.
With the ball, England were far too loose, once more unable to exploit fairly helpful conditions. The bowlers seem incapable of thinking on their feet. While Ross Taylor played a phenomenal innings, testament to his rare talent, England totally lacked discipline or skill. James Anderson is far too erratic for Test cricket, and must immediately be dispensed with. Monty Panesar's downward curve continues; he is symptomatic of England's struggles when the opposition do something unexpected.
A damning indictement of this side is they have not learned from their feebleness in Hamilton, and have repeated all the same mistakes. The batting was abject once more. It is an oft-quoted statistic that all the top six average over 40, but those averages have been in decline for some time. Furthermore, the averages are boosted both by feasting on minnows and today's generally easier batting conditions. 40 is clearly no longer the mark of a top-class Test batsman. The batting lineup seems fundamentally flawed, and rejigging the pack cannot disguise it. Men of skill and desire, such as Owais Shah and Rob Key (and, given the desperation of the situation and the need to win the next game, rather than plan for some mythical date in the future, perhaps even Mark Ramprakash or his captain Mark Butcher, enjoying the purplest of patches), should be brought in, not just for the quality they possess but for the message it would send. The decision to drop Andrew Strauss and simultaneously hand him a new central contract was a half-hearted signal at best; and he got back in without making a run.
The skipper led by example, eeking out an agonising 133-ball 30. He often talks of helping his players "express themselves"; yet he himself was patently incapable of doing that. Ian Bell's innings surprised no one - a painstaking start followed by a somewhat half-hearted waft outside offstump.Paul Collingwood, for the second consecutive innings, looked out of his depth. He maximises his talent, certainly, but is painfully out-of-form - he has hit just 39 runs in seven innings this season - and, ultimately, is simply perhaps not good enough at Test level, whatever an Ashes double-hundred may suggest. The most depressing innings, however, was played by England's best batsman.
Kevin Pietersen has gradually gone from being a maverick, and a genius capable of decimating the bowling with his idiosyncratic brand of fearlessnes, into a man seemingly lacking faith in his own ability. The transformation was inevitable in some respects (as I have discussed before), and is not without its benefits. Maturity has brought some positive aspects, of course, but it is grim watching the contrast between him and Taylor, surely no more talented, on the same pitch in the same match.
This is, at last in part, an indictement of the England set-up. Are players so well-rewarded, that they are so desperate to cling onto their places that they are paralysed by fear? The culture appears to gradually suck the individuality out of players; they are spoon-fed by legions of support staff, and subsequently have lost the ability to think for themselves. This extends even to the captain and coach, who refrain from indulging in horses-for-courses of any sort - the merits of which were reaffirmed by O'Brien's sterling endeavours here. The stability of central contracts has clearly gone way too far: it appears easier to get into the side than out of it. What to do? Sack the lot of 'em? England need a shakeup of sorts, even if it has the whiff of '90s short-termism about it.
And yet England have managed it. Scrapping over the follow-on target against the Kiwis at Old Trafford was just about as depressing as it comes. Dan Vettori has bowled with mesmerising guile (much better in fact, than he bowled in New Zealand), while Ian O'Brien has been fantastic. But England have been diffident and pathetic, showing no inclination to hit bowlers off their rhythm, allowing themselves to be trapped in their crease meekly, barely able to hit a run and just wait for their inevitable dismissals. If New Zealand have been fantastic, it is in large part because they have been allowed to be.
With the ball, England were far too loose, once more unable to exploit fairly helpful conditions. The bowlers seem incapable of thinking on their feet. While Ross Taylor played a phenomenal innings, testament to his rare talent, England totally lacked discipline or skill. James Anderson is far too erratic for Test cricket, and must immediately be dispensed with. Monty Panesar's downward curve continues; he is symptomatic of England's struggles when the opposition do something unexpected.
A damning indictement of this side is they have not learned from their feebleness in Hamilton, and have repeated all the same mistakes. The batting was abject once more. It is an oft-quoted statistic that all the top six average over 40, but those averages have been in decline for some time. Furthermore, the averages are boosted both by feasting on minnows and today's generally easier batting conditions. 40 is clearly no longer the mark of a top-class Test batsman. The batting lineup seems fundamentally flawed, and rejigging the pack cannot disguise it. Men of skill and desire, such as Owais Shah and Rob Key (and, given the desperation of the situation and the need to win the next game, rather than plan for some mythical date in the future, perhaps even Mark Ramprakash or his captain Mark Butcher, enjoying the purplest of patches), should be brought in, not just for the quality they possess but for the message it would send. The decision to drop Andrew Strauss and simultaneously hand him a new central contract was a half-hearted signal at best; and he got back in without making a run.
The skipper led by example, eeking out an agonising 133-ball 30. He often talks of helping his players "express themselves"; yet he himself was patently incapable of doing that. Ian Bell's innings surprised no one - a painstaking start followed by a somewhat half-hearted waft outside offstump.Paul Collingwood, for the second consecutive innings, looked out of his depth. He maximises his talent, certainly, but is painfully out-of-form - he has hit just 39 runs in seven innings this season - and, ultimately, is simply perhaps not good enough at Test level, whatever an Ashes double-hundred may suggest. The most depressing innings, however, was played by England's best batsman.
Kevin Pietersen has gradually gone from being a maverick, and a genius capable of decimating the bowling with his idiosyncratic brand of fearlessnes, into a man seemingly lacking faith in his own ability. The transformation was inevitable in some respects (as I have discussed before), and is not without its benefits. Maturity has brought some positive aspects, of course, but it is grim watching the contrast between him and Taylor, surely no more talented, on the same pitch in the same match.
This is, at last in part, an indictement of the England set-up. Are players so well-rewarded, that they are so desperate to cling onto their places that they are paralysed by fear? The culture appears to gradually suck the individuality out of players; they are spoon-fed by legions of support staff, and subsequently have lost the ability to think for themselves. This extends even to the captain and coach, who refrain from indulging in horses-for-courses of any sort - the merits of which were reaffirmed by O'Brien's sterling endeavours here. The stability of central contracts has clearly gone way too far: it appears easier to get into the side than out of it. What to do? Sack the lot of 'em? England need a shakeup of sorts, even if it has the whiff of '90s short-termism about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)