After cruising to victory in the Test series against the West Indies, England suffered an ignominious defeat in the one-day series. They learned little new and, depressingly, there was little sign of perennial problems being rectified. Here is how they rated in the ODIs:
Alastair Cook 4
So impressive in the Test series, Cook seemed unsure of how to approach the shorter game. His ability to find the boundary was encouraging; but his inability to get off strike shows he has much work to do in this form of the game, though he must not be discarded.
Matt Prior 6
Opening the batting, Prior displayed impressive shot selection and was not, as some had feared, too rash, showing he could adapt his game depending on circumstances.
Ian Bell 5
Bell made a crucial 56 in the first game, and certainly has the qualities to thrive in ODIs. His problem is not so much his relatively slow scoring, but his apparent incapability of scoring a truly decisive knock.
Kevin Pietersen 2
Five failures, including in the Twenty20, served to highlight England’s unhealthy reliance on his brilliant batting.
Owais Shah 8
Shah scored a superb 55* in the second Twenty20 game and, from tricky situations, scored at least 40 in each ODI. His unorthodoxy, flair and sheer class are certainly meriting of a regular spot in the shorter formats.
Paul Collingwood 4
Collingwood was disappointing all round, though there is no need to panic yet. He averaged only 17 with the bat; his bowling was below par; and his captaincy looked uncertain during the last two ODIs. Collingwood’s decision to move himself from backward point was understandable, but, in future, he really must return there, where he can make such a difference.
Michael Yardy 5
International class? Probably not – Yardy’s darts may have been accurate, albeit unthreatening, but his batting is patently incapable of worrying the opposition: he is far too easy to tie down.
Dimitri Mascarenhas 6
Mascarenhas went wicketless but went for a frugal 3.50 an over with his intelligent wicket-to-wicket bowling, displaying control the envy of the young quicks. However, he was picked as an all-rounder and barely scored a run in the ODIs.
Liam Plunkett 7
Recalled after leading Durham to the Friends Provident Trophy Final, Plunkett clearly has much work still to do but he was England’s best seamer, taking five wickets in 20 overs, though consistency is still palpably lacking.
James Anderson 5
Anderson seems to have become undroppable in England’s ODI side, though he is too often wayward. As a new-ball bowler, he is adequate; but he is cannon fodder later on (he went for 47 in 3 overs in the second ODI) and is certainly not the answer to England’s death-bowling problems.
Stuart Broad 5
Broad was outstanding in the first game, taking 3-20, only to get progressively worse in the last two games. There is no doubting the beanpole’s promise – but some more county cricket would not go amiss.
Monty Panesar 5
Panesar was mystifyingly dropped for the second game and under-used in the third. Though his ODI performances have flattered to deceive to date, the left-armer should be of great use as a middle-over container.
Ryan Sidebottom 5
Sidebottom took 2-56 in the nine overs he bowled before, a little unfairly, being dropped for the decider. However, his exceptional performance in the second Twenty20 game shows he could have the control and cunning England so dearly need in one-day cricket.
Showing posts with label England-West Indies 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England-West Indies 2007. Show all posts
Sunday, 8 July 2007
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Another new ODI Era
Paul Collingwood has had very limited captaincy experience, but he is an experienced one-day international player, a fine team man and a thoroughly worthy choice to lead England’s latest ODI era.
Collingwood, when asked for the qualities he brings to the side, once remarked upon his “ginger hair”; his fighting qualities have never been in doubt. He is, some would say, the safe choice but, with Kevin Pietersen having said he did not want the job, he was virtually the only choice. Collingwood’s friendship with Michael Vaughan and the fact he clearly shares the same cricketing values means, insomuch as it is possible, having two captains should cause very few problems.
His introduction will be almost as gentle as they come against a West Indian side lacking consistency with the bat and penetration with the ball.
The road to ODI success will be a long one. England will hope their overhaul of the top three begins smoothly, with the contrasting gifts of Alastair Cook, Matt Prior, who should not think of himself as a ‘pinch-hitter’ but seek to play in the attacking, yet not reckless, manner of his opening Tests and either Ian Bell or the newcomer Jonathan Trott. Trott is an unlikely selection but offers top-order aggression, while it must be hoped the supremely gifted Owais Shah is given a fair chance to showcase his talents – ideally at five, although this is where Collingwood would like to bat.
In the bowling department, Ryan Sidebottom has the chance to do what Jon Lewis has yet to be given the chance to, despite his excellent record, and cement himself as a regular in the one-day side as a stock bowler, England’s Nathan Bracken. Dimitri Mascarenhas has the attributes to be a modern-day Mark Ealham, while the highly promising Stuart Broad has made an excellent earl impression and has the temperament to thrive in the international scene. Liam Plunkett and James Anderson, meanwhile, will be aiming simply for a semblance of consistency.
Collingwood, when asked for the qualities he brings to the side, once remarked upon his “ginger hair”; his fighting qualities have never been in doubt. He is, some would say, the safe choice but, with Kevin Pietersen having said he did not want the job, he was virtually the only choice. Collingwood’s friendship with Michael Vaughan and the fact he clearly shares the same cricketing values means, insomuch as it is possible, having two captains should cause very few problems.
His introduction will be almost as gentle as they come against a West Indian side lacking consistency with the bat and penetration with the ball.
The road to ODI success will be a long one. England will hope their overhaul of the top three begins smoothly, with the contrasting gifts of Alastair Cook, Matt Prior, who should not think of himself as a ‘pinch-hitter’ but seek to play in the attacking, yet not reckless, manner of his opening Tests and either Ian Bell or the newcomer Jonathan Trott. Trott is an unlikely selection but offers top-order aggression, while it must be hoped the supremely gifted Owais Shah is given a fair chance to showcase his talents – ideally at five, although this is where Collingwood would like to bat.
In the bowling department, Ryan Sidebottom has the chance to do what Jon Lewis has yet to be given the chance to, despite his excellent record, and cement himself as a regular in the one-day side as a stock bowler, England’s Nathan Bracken. Dimitri Mascarenhas has the attributes to be a modern-day Mark Ealham, while the highly promising Stuart Broad has made an excellent earl impression and has the temperament to thrive in the international scene. Liam Plunkett and James Anderson, meanwhile, will be aiming simply for a semblance of consistency.
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
England Series Ratings
England eased to a 3-0 series victory against the West Indies, but the opposition, with a few honourable exceptions, were no better than a poor county side. How did England’s players rate?
Alastair Cook 8
Two relatively routine Test centuries to take his tally to six – and two 50s to boot – were reward for a series in which Cook grew in confidence and aggression; in doing so, he showed the time is right for him to have an extended run in the ODI side.
Andrew Strauss 3
While his partner flourished, Strauss’ winter struggles continued as both his technique and previously unflappable temperament came under question. Although he made a very good 77 in the last Test, he averaged at least 21 less than all the other members of the top seven and has much to do to prove he has not been found out at Test level.
Owais Shah 1
Shah played two somewhat chaotic innings at Lord’s and, if this immensely talented player is to thrive at Test level, it will probably not be at number three.
Michael Vaughan 8
It was as if Vaughan had never been away. His comeback hundred hardly rivalled those of Boycott in ’77 and Thorpe in 2003, but, nonetheless, it was a highly fluent knock which showcased the best of Vaughan. His captaincy was an important facet of England’s three consecutive victories though both that and his batting will face tougher tests against India.
Kevin Pietersen 9
Pietersen made two fabulous consecutive hundreds, including his Test best, 226, to illustrate he has the patience and temperament to make huge scores at Test level. Despite a series average of 66, there were still a few too many moments of impetuosity.
Paul Collingwood 7
Collingwood looked worryingly troubled on occasions, but he rode some extraordinary good fortune to make 111 at Lord’s before scoring a terrific 128 on his first Test at home to cement his place in the side. At Lord’s, he also bowled well to claim the wicket of Bravo.
Ian Bell 7
Bell scored a rather facile century in the First Test, but his excellent 97 at Old Trafford made in the trickiest batting conditions England faced all series, was testament to his increased maturity.
Matt Prior 8
Prior scored a century on debut and 75 in the second Test, but it was his innings of 40 and 62 in the last two Tests, made under far more testing circumstances, that were more indicative of his qualities as a Test batsmen, although a few dismissals were born of over-confidence. His keeping, while never matching the levels of Read, was agile and is clearly improving.
Liam Plunkett 3
Plunkett took 4-60 in the match at Headingley, but this was in spite of serial inaccuracy. His action, a victim of excess biomechanics, is fundamentally flawed and if England leave him playing for Durham for the remainder of the summer it will help him realise his rich potential.
Steve Harmison 5
Harmison often seemed incapable of hitting the square, let alone the stumps, but he deserves credit for working through his problems, with the help of Allan Donald, to bowl with much more venom in the last three innings of the series. His commitment cannot be doubted, either, after bowling a spell of 17 consecutive overs to help England to victory on his home ground.
Ryan Sidebottom 8
England’s big find of the series, the shaggy-haired Sidebottom claimed 16 wickets at under 20, although he went wicketless in West Indies’ last two second innings, and also biffed impressively. Left-armers able to swing the ball both ways, as Sidebottom, a beneficiary of many years on the county circuit, proved he can, are rare and he deserves the series against India to prove he can trouble the world’s best batsmen.
Matthew Hoggard 7
Hoggard was reassuring, and most impressive, in claiming 5/86 on his return on the final Test.
Monty Panesar 9
Panesar was England’s key man; there were many occasions during the first and third Tests when it seemed as if only he could take a wicket. Although he was perhaps a little defensive in the first three Tests, he bowled with more loop at Chester-le-Street to claim 5-46. Overall, he was fantastic, claiming 23 wickets at 18 to continue his development as a spinner able to both contain and to take top order wickets even in unhelpful conditions.
Alastair Cook 8
Two relatively routine Test centuries to take his tally to six – and two 50s to boot – were reward for a series in which Cook grew in confidence and aggression; in doing so, he showed the time is right for him to have an extended run in the ODI side.
Andrew Strauss 3
While his partner flourished, Strauss’ winter struggles continued as both his technique and previously unflappable temperament came under question. Although he made a very good 77 in the last Test, he averaged at least 21 less than all the other members of the top seven and has much to do to prove he has not been found out at Test level.
Owais Shah 1
Shah played two somewhat chaotic innings at Lord’s and, if this immensely talented player is to thrive at Test level, it will probably not be at number three.
Michael Vaughan 8
It was as if Vaughan had never been away. His comeback hundred hardly rivalled those of Boycott in ’77 and Thorpe in 2003, but, nonetheless, it was a highly fluent knock which showcased the best of Vaughan. His captaincy was an important facet of England’s three consecutive victories though both that and his batting will face tougher tests against India.
Kevin Pietersen 9
Pietersen made two fabulous consecutive hundreds, including his Test best, 226, to illustrate he has the patience and temperament to make huge scores at Test level. Despite a series average of 66, there were still a few too many moments of impetuosity.
Paul Collingwood 7
Collingwood looked worryingly troubled on occasions, but he rode some extraordinary good fortune to make 111 at Lord’s before scoring a terrific 128 on his first Test at home to cement his place in the side. At Lord’s, he also bowled well to claim the wicket of Bravo.
Ian Bell 7
Bell scored a rather facile century in the First Test, but his excellent 97 at Old Trafford made in the trickiest batting conditions England faced all series, was testament to his increased maturity.
Matt Prior 8
Prior scored a century on debut and 75 in the second Test, but it was his innings of 40 and 62 in the last two Tests, made under far more testing circumstances, that were more indicative of his qualities as a Test batsmen, although a few dismissals were born of over-confidence. His keeping, while never matching the levels of Read, was agile and is clearly improving.
Liam Plunkett 3
Plunkett took 4-60 in the match at Headingley, but this was in spite of serial inaccuracy. His action, a victim of excess biomechanics, is fundamentally flawed and if England leave him playing for Durham for the remainder of the summer it will help him realise his rich potential.
Steve Harmison 5
Harmison often seemed incapable of hitting the square, let alone the stumps, but he deserves credit for working through his problems, with the help of Allan Donald, to bowl with much more venom in the last three innings of the series. His commitment cannot be doubted, either, after bowling a spell of 17 consecutive overs to help England to victory on his home ground.
Ryan Sidebottom 8
England’s big find of the series, the shaggy-haired Sidebottom claimed 16 wickets at under 20, although he went wicketless in West Indies’ last two second innings, and also biffed impressively. Left-armers able to swing the ball both ways, as Sidebottom, a beneficiary of many years on the county circuit, proved he can, are rare and he deserves the series against India to prove he can trouble the world’s best batsmen.
Matthew Hoggard 7
Hoggard was reassuring, and most impressive, in claiming 5/86 on his return on the final Test.
Monty Panesar 9
Panesar was England’s key man; there were many occasions during the first and third Tests when it seemed as if only he could take a wicket. Although he was perhaps a little defensive in the first three Tests, he bowled with more loop at Chester-le-Street to claim 5-46. Overall, he was fantastic, claiming 23 wickets at 18 to continue his development as a spinner able to both contain and to take top order wickets even in unhelpful conditions.
Monday, 18 June 2007
Vaughan's resignation paves the way for a new ODI era
Michael Vaughan has always been a poor one-day player, and it now appears he will never have the chance to rectify this. But his decision to resign the ODI captaincy must be applauded; it is in the interests of both himself and England.
The nature of the shorter formats of the game is such that the chances of Vaughan receiving an injury would be greatly accentuated. At 32, he is probably one major injury way from retirement, and seriously damaging his knee in ODIs or Twenty20 would be a desperately sad end to his international career.
Vaughan’s aim is surely to regain the Ashes in 2009.To achieve that, he needs an extended run in the Test side, establishing stability so lacking in the past 18 months while proving he can still score runs against the world’s finest attacks. Frankly, it makes no sense for him playing in one-dayers. As he has admitted, he will not be around for the 2011 World Cup.
That in itself was not sufficient reason to dispense with him – Australia continued with the likes of Lehman, Bevan and Bichel after the 2003 tournament – but, moreover, England’s chances of success either at the Twenty20 World Cup this year or the 2008 Champions Trophy are not greatly enhanced (if at all) by his presence. So it is a sensible solution for all concerned for him to resign now, having reaffirmed his hold on the Test captaincy against the West Indies.
People will point to Nasser Hussain resigning in 2002 for evidence of the instability two skippers can cause, but Hussain was far less suited to compromise than Vaughan; they are traits that served him very well as skipper, but he was fundamentally not suited to be a ‘half-skipper’.
Vaughan, however, is more laid-back and, though he can be very stubborn, should not suffer greatly from having someone else lead the ODI side, especially as the most likely candidate – Paul Collingwood – would be unlikely to do things in a very different manner. That said, I would prefer to entrust Kevin Pietersen with the extra responsibility as he is by far England’s best player, has a very astute cricket brain and, in ODIs, attacking captains are almost always the most successful – and, if nothing else, he would surely be that.
See 'One Day Options'
The nature of the shorter formats of the game is such that the chances of Vaughan receiving an injury would be greatly accentuated. At 32, he is probably one major injury way from retirement, and seriously damaging his knee in ODIs or Twenty20 would be a desperately sad end to his international career.
Vaughan’s aim is surely to regain the Ashes in 2009.To achieve that, he needs an extended run in the Test side, establishing stability so lacking in the past 18 months while proving he can still score runs against the world’s finest attacks. Frankly, it makes no sense for him playing in one-dayers. As he has admitted, he will not be around for the 2011 World Cup.
That in itself was not sufficient reason to dispense with him – Australia continued with the likes of Lehman, Bevan and Bichel after the 2003 tournament – but, moreover, England’s chances of success either at the Twenty20 World Cup this year or the 2008 Champions Trophy are not greatly enhanced (if at all) by his presence. So it is a sensible solution for all concerned for him to resign now, having reaffirmed his hold on the Test captaincy against the West Indies.
People will point to Nasser Hussain resigning in 2002 for evidence of the instability two skippers can cause, but Hussain was far less suited to compromise than Vaughan; they are traits that served him very well as skipper, but he was fundamentally not suited to be a ‘half-skipper’.
Vaughan, however, is more laid-back and, though he can be very stubborn, should not suffer greatly from having someone else lead the ODI side, especially as the most likely candidate – Paul Collingwood – would be unlikely to do things in a very different manner. That said, I would prefer to entrust Kevin Pietersen with the extra responsibility as he is by far England’s best player, has a very astute cricket brain and, in ODIs, attacking captains are almost always the most successful – and, if nothing else, he would surely be that.
See 'One Day Options'
Thursday, 14 June 2007
One Day Options
With the final test about to start, it's time to start thinking of the shorter game. The World Cup disappointment and the fact that the West Indies are also rebuilding means that this is the ideal opportunity to begin building a new One Day team. Here are the options and my team to take the national team forward.
Wicket Keeper
Lets start with the easy one and the one position where we are choosing from strength. Paul Nixon had a very good World Cup, but Matt Prior has announced himself onto the world scene, is 12 years younger and may even get in on his batting alone. In the wings we have Tim Ambrose, James Foster and Chris Read (amongst others) , but at the moment Prior is well ahead of the pack and I'd have him opening the batting.
Batting
England's problem at the World Cup was the number of accumulators at the top of the innings, and with Ali Cook also being mentioned, it is time to move away from test batsmen playing ODIs.
Only one of Vaughan, Bell, Strauss, Joyce and Cook should play, as an opening batsman. For this series, this comes down to a straight choice between Bell and Cook. Marcus Trescothick hasn't been considered.
Of the five middle order batsmen we need, three are clear cut choices, with Pietersen, Collingwood and Bopara being our best three batsmen in the World Cup. This leaves two spaces, as Collingwood and Bopara constitute the fifth bowler.
To my mind, in the frame should be Owais Shah, Vikram Solanki, James Hildreth, James Benning, Alex Gidman. Of those, Benning is not in great form at the moment, but his time should come later. The other four should all make the squad and given an opportunity. However, my first two choices will be two who have been tried before - Shah and Solanki. Both are in great form and both will benefit from a more consistent selection policy.
Bowlers
Four bowlers are required. With Flintoff (who should be considered to be a bowler) injured, then Jimmy Anderson is our best One Day bowler. Sharing the new ball with him should be Simon Jones. None of the other pace bowlers used in the World Cup were able to control the white ball and should be left to the test arena.
One of the big surprises of the World Cup was how ineffective Monty Panesar was, and Michael Vaughan was our most effective spin bowler. In the short version of the game, Ian Blackwell was improving his control and I would have him into the team instead of Monty.
For the final bowler, who would normally be Flintoff, I have three options, all of whom offer something with the bat as well as the ball. Rikki Clarke and Jamie Dalrymple have had extended runs in the team, but are both still young and should not be discounted. However, I would give Tim Bresnan another run beginning against slightly more friendly opposition than Sri Lanka last year. He has been solid with bat and ball this season, scoringhis maiden first class hundred, and his bowling pace has increased.
Captain
The Australian adage is pick the team then the captain. Vikram Solanki has had a couple of years captaining Worcester now, taking them to an unlikely promotion last season. While Collingwood has his supporters, he has little captaincy experience and should continue to be a key leader on the field rather than the team captain.
Therefore, my team for the ODI series
Prior
Bell
Solanki (c)
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Bopara
Bresnan
Blackwell
Jones
Anderson
With Rikki Clarke, James Hildreth, Alex Gidman and Graham Onions making up the 15 man squad
Wicket Keeper
Lets start with the easy one and the one position where we are choosing from strength. Paul Nixon had a very good World Cup, but Matt Prior has announced himself onto the world scene, is 12 years younger and may even get in on his batting alone. In the wings we have Tim Ambrose, James Foster and Chris Read (amongst others) , but at the moment Prior is well ahead of the pack and I'd have him opening the batting.
Batting
England's problem at the World Cup was the number of accumulators at the top of the innings, and with Ali Cook also being mentioned, it is time to move away from test batsmen playing ODIs.
Only one of Vaughan, Bell, Strauss, Joyce and Cook should play, as an opening batsman. For this series, this comes down to a straight choice between Bell and Cook. Marcus Trescothick hasn't been considered.
Of the five middle order batsmen we need, three are clear cut choices, with Pietersen, Collingwood and Bopara being our best three batsmen in the World Cup. This leaves two spaces, as Collingwood and Bopara constitute the fifth bowler.
To my mind, in the frame should be Owais Shah, Vikram Solanki, James Hildreth, James Benning, Alex Gidman. Of those, Benning is not in great form at the moment, but his time should come later. The other four should all make the squad and given an opportunity. However, my first two choices will be two who have been tried before - Shah and Solanki. Both are in great form and both will benefit from a more consistent selection policy.
Bowlers
Four bowlers are required. With Flintoff (who should be considered to be a bowler) injured, then Jimmy Anderson is our best One Day bowler. Sharing the new ball with him should be Simon Jones. None of the other pace bowlers used in the World Cup were able to control the white ball and should be left to the test arena.
One of the big surprises of the World Cup was how ineffective Monty Panesar was, and Michael Vaughan was our most effective spin bowler. In the short version of the game, Ian Blackwell was improving his control and I would have him into the team instead of Monty.
For the final bowler, who would normally be Flintoff, I have three options, all of whom offer something with the bat as well as the ball. Rikki Clarke and Jamie Dalrymple have had extended runs in the team, but are both still young and should not be discounted. However, I would give Tim Bresnan another run beginning against slightly more friendly opposition than Sri Lanka last year. He has been solid with bat and ball this season, scoringhis maiden first class hundred, and his bowling pace has increased.
Captain
The Australian adage is pick the team then the captain. Vikram Solanki has had a couple of years captaining Worcester now, taking them to an unlikely promotion last season. While Collingwood has his supporters, he has little captaincy experience and should continue to be a key leader on the field rather than the team captain.
Therefore, my team for the ODI series
Prior
Bell
Solanki (c)
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Bopara
Bresnan
Blackwell
Jones
Anderson
With Rikki Clarke, James Hildreth, Alex Gidman and Graham Onions making up the 15 man squad
Monday, 11 June 2007
What has happened to Andrew Strauss?
Andrew Strauss, not so long ago, was a model of reliability as an opening batsman. Though seldom spectacular, he made the most of his somewhat minimalistic game. His phlegmatic temperament and fondness of scoring square of the wicket evoked comparisons with his former Middlesex team-mate Justin Langer.
Now, however, he appears to have been found out. It is clear that, if he is denied width, the offside field is packed and bowlers continue to bowl outside off-stump, his run-scoring becomes stunted and, eventually, his frustration will get the better of him. Though this, generally speaking, is a formula that will oust most Test batsmen, Strauss is particularly susceptible because he scores very few runs down the ground, meaning it is too easy for good bowlers to choke his scoring shots.
Above all, Strauss appears mentally exhausted after a winter in which he was worked over relentlessly by Australia; as the senior batsman, much was expected of him. Yet he struggled and, especially worryingly, has continued to do so even against the moderate West Indies attack. He has now reached beyond the point of suffering a mere dip in form; the feeling is that his limited game – once his strength – has been found out.
In 15 Test innings, he has failed to pass 50; he has been equally poor in one-day internationals. Though it was Australia who exposed his flaws, Strauss’ woes have not dissipated against friendlier attacks; rather, they have been accentuated as, while he has continued to struggle, others have enjoyed relatively easy pickings. Strauss is very lucky to remain in the Test squad for Chester-le-Street; and, with a plethora of batsmen pushing their claims, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that, if he fails, his international career could be at an end.
Now, however, he appears to have been found out. It is clear that, if he is denied width, the offside field is packed and bowlers continue to bowl outside off-stump, his run-scoring becomes stunted and, eventually, his frustration will get the better of him. Though this, generally speaking, is a formula that will oust most Test batsmen, Strauss is particularly susceptible because he scores very few runs down the ground, meaning it is too easy for good bowlers to choke his scoring shots.
Above all, Strauss appears mentally exhausted after a winter in which he was worked over relentlessly by Australia; as the senior batsman, much was expected of him. Yet he struggled and, especially worryingly, has continued to do so even against the moderate West Indies attack. He has now reached beyond the point of suffering a mere dip in form; the feeling is that his limited game – once his strength – has been found out.
In 15 Test innings, he has failed to pass 50; he has been equally poor in one-day internationals. Though it was Australia who exposed his flaws, Strauss’ woes have not dissipated against friendlier attacks; rather, they have been accentuated as, while he has continued to struggle, others have enjoyed relatively easy pickings. Strauss is very lucky to remain in the Test squad for Chester-le-Street; and, with a plethora of batsmen pushing their claims, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that, if he fails, his international career could be at an end.
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Selection Headaches
In the wake of England's hammering of the West Indies, the selectors have found themselves in a bit of problem: If everyone is fit to play - who to pick?
With the 'horses for courses' selection of Ryan Sidebottom playing so well at Headingley, surely he cannot just be put out of the window for the next test, however if Hoggard proves himself fit enough for Old Trafford, can we afford to go in with two swing bowlers?
Also, maybe a good dilemma could be who to get rid of out of Plunkett or Harmison if Sidebottom is picked again. Neither played fantastically well but neither sprayed it around as much as they did a Lord's. Both proved they can bowl good wicket-taking balls and Harmison clocked up around 94mph showing he can still bowl dangerously fast.
Lets say Flintoff is fit to play again, do we go in with a four or five man attack? For me a 4 man attack including Panesar is fine, but we have seen in previous years that the selectors, coach and captain like a 5-man attack. If a 5-man attack was picked, which batsman would go? Collingwood would be the obvious man, but his form is too good, so for me Bell. However, if a 4-man attack is chosen, which bowlers do we go in with? Sidebottom and Hoggard are too 'samey' if we only go for 3 seamers (including Flintoff), but how can you drop Sidebottom? Plunkett and Harmison will be asking what they have done wrong aswell to be dropped. So the selectors have a lot of thinking to do.
If you ask me, providing Flintoff was fit enough to bowl 20-30 overs a day, I would play a 4-man attack, with the two swing bowlers, Hoggard and Sidebottom making up the rest of the seam attack, with Panesar obvisiously being the spinner.
I would pick this side to play at Old Trafford;
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Prior
Flintoff
Hoggard
Panesar
Sidebottom
This may appear a huge risk, playing 2 swing bowlers and having no varitaion, but although their performance was greatly improved, Plunkett and Harmison were still too wayward and more county appearances can only help. But the batting (although it hasn't come under much pressure so far) is greatly improved, with Flintoff at 8.
Jack
With the 'horses for courses' selection of Ryan Sidebottom playing so well at Headingley, surely he cannot just be put out of the window for the next test, however if Hoggard proves himself fit enough for Old Trafford, can we afford to go in with two swing bowlers?
Also, maybe a good dilemma could be who to get rid of out of Plunkett or Harmison if Sidebottom is picked again. Neither played fantastically well but neither sprayed it around as much as they did a Lord's. Both proved they can bowl good wicket-taking balls and Harmison clocked up around 94mph showing he can still bowl dangerously fast.
Lets say Flintoff is fit to play again, do we go in with a four or five man attack? For me a 4 man attack including Panesar is fine, but we have seen in previous years that the selectors, coach and captain like a 5-man attack. If a 5-man attack was picked, which batsman would go? Collingwood would be the obvious man, but his form is too good, so for me Bell. However, if a 4-man attack is chosen, which bowlers do we go in with? Sidebottom and Hoggard are too 'samey' if we only go for 3 seamers (including Flintoff), but how can you drop Sidebottom? Plunkett and Harmison will be asking what they have done wrong aswell to be dropped. So the selectors have a lot of thinking to do.
If you ask me, providing Flintoff was fit enough to bowl 20-30 overs a day, I would play a 4-man attack, with the two swing bowlers, Hoggard and Sidebottom making up the rest of the seam attack, with Panesar obvisiously being the spinner.
I would pick this side to play at Old Trafford;
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Prior
Flintoff
Hoggard
Panesar
Sidebottom
This may appear a huge risk, playing 2 swing bowlers and having no varitaion, but although their performance was greatly improved, Plunkett and Harmison were still too wayward and more county appearances can only help. But the batting (although it hasn't come under much pressure so far) is greatly improved, with Flintoff at 8.
Jack
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
The real Harmison
Once again Steve Harmison finds himself under attack for not performing at Lord's last week. No other current England player seems capable of generating heated argument as easily as the Durham enigma.
I have always been a great admirer of Harmison and supported his selection through all his ups and downs. I still do and the reason for that is that he is still a class Test bowler, who's figures reflect a player England cannot afford to drop.
His recent nightmare in Australia and sluggish bowling at Lord's should not disguise the fact that Harmison was ripping though a strong Pakistan team only last August and that his overall record, apart from three glaring anomalies, stands up to the most ardent scrutiny.
Those anomalies are his two tours of Australia and one tour of South Africa. On all three occasions he was unable to perform at the high level we have all come to expect and looked the sad forlorn figure that left the recent Ashes series with his tail between his legs.
The terrible stats of those three tours make grim reading for Harmison supporters - Australia 2002/3: 9 wickets @ 50.55, SA 2004/5: 9 @ 73.22, Australia 2006/7: 10 @ 61.40. Clearly these performances are not good enough, but they are not just down to Harmison not travelling well, as his stats for other tours reveal.
Against Australia most of the England bowlers suffered on both those tours, as one expects in such one-sided series. The South Africa tour is an odd one as the pitches ought to have suited Harmison. Maybe he just got on a poor run and his alleged homesickness got the better of him.
On other tours Harmison has been far more successful. On the flat dead tracks of Pakistan in 2005/6, against a very strong batting line-up, Harmison showed great determination to take 12 wickets @ 32.41. Even in India in 2005/6, when he was not fully fit, he managed 5 @ 38.60.
Of course, his finest hour, excluding his 9 @ 8.77 in Bangladesh in 2003/4, was against West Indies in 2003/4. In this series, which people forget was the first England had won in WI for over 30 years, Harmison took 23 @ 14.86.
Harmison's home form has always been good. He has consistently taken wickets in every series he has played in England, only suffering once against SA in 2003, when he managed only 9 wickets @ 45.88. However, this was a very high scoring series in hot weather when most bowlers suffered.
Only last summer Harmison showed his quality taking 20 @ 27.10 against Pakistan, despite the number of runs scored by their batsmen in that series.
In conclusion Harmison's overall record of 190 wickets @ 31.10 in just 51 Tests stands comparison with most good fast bowlers, in terms of wickets per match. His average is too high, reflecting those three awful tours, but is still acceptable in a batsman dominated era.
To suggest that he should be dropped after just one Test this summer is to ignore the history of the man and to weaken England's bowling attack considerably.
I have always been a great admirer of Harmison and supported his selection through all his ups and downs. I still do and the reason for that is that he is still a class Test bowler, who's figures reflect a player England cannot afford to drop.
His recent nightmare in Australia and sluggish bowling at Lord's should not disguise the fact that Harmison was ripping though a strong Pakistan team only last August and that his overall record, apart from three glaring anomalies, stands up to the most ardent scrutiny.
Those anomalies are his two tours of Australia and one tour of South Africa. On all three occasions he was unable to perform at the high level we have all come to expect and looked the sad forlorn figure that left the recent Ashes series with his tail between his legs.
The terrible stats of those three tours make grim reading for Harmison supporters - Australia 2002/3: 9 wickets @ 50.55, SA 2004/5: 9 @ 73.22, Australia 2006/7: 10 @ 61.40. Clearly these performances are not good enough, but they are not just down to Harmison not travelling well, as his stats for other tours reveal.
Against Australia most of the England bowlers suffered on both those tours, as one expects in such one-sided series. The South Africa tour is an odd one as the pitches ought to have suited Harmison. Maybe he just got on a poor run and his alleged homesickness got the better of him.
On other tours Harmison has been far more successful. On the flat dead tracks of Pakistan in 2005/6, against a very strong batting line-up, Harmison showed great determination to take 12 wickets @ 32.41. Even in India in 2005/6, when he was not fully fit, he managed 5 @ 38.60.
Of course, his finest hour, excluding his 9 @ 8.77 in Bangladesh in 2003/4, was against West Indies in 2003/4. In this series, which people forget was the first England had won in WI for over 30 years, Harmison took 23 @ 14.86.
Harmison's home form has always been good. He has consistently taken wickets in every series he has played in England, only suffering once against SA in 2003, when he managed only 9 wickets @ 45.88. However, this was a very high scoring series in hot weather when most bowlers suffered.
Only last summer Harmison showed his quality taking 20 @ 27.10 against Pakistan, despite the number of runs scored by their batsmen in that series.
In conclusion Harmison's overall record of 190 wickets @ 31.10 in just 51 Tests stands comparison with most good fast bowlers, in terms of wickets per match. His average is too high, reflecting those three awful tours, but is still acceptable in a batsman dominated era.
To suggest that he should be dropped after just one Test this summer is to ignore the history of the man and to weaken England's bowling attack considerably.
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
Ryan Sidebottom and 'Horses for Courses'
Ryan Sidebottom, to the surprise of many, has been selected for the second Test and keeps alive one of the great traditions of the English summer: the ‘horses for courses’ selection for the Headingly Test. It is based on the simple notion that a fine, experienced county seamer is of more worth at Headingly than a bowler who, elsewhere, would be considered more threatening.
‘Horses for courses’ instantly evokes memories of Neil Mallender, who took 8-122 in the match against Pakistan in 1992, and Steve Watkin, who took 5-91 in the game against West Indies a year previously. Many quaint cricketing traditions have rather vanished in the modern era of uber-professionalism and central contracts, but not this. In 2003 James Kirtley won England a Test against South Africa in quintessentially English conditions (albeit at Trent Bridge), while Martin Bicknell’s recall came in that same summer. Initially picked for Headingly, he was given the last Test at his home ground too, where he helped bowl England to victory.
So, despite the odd Martin Saggers (who played unsuccessfully in 2004 against New Zealand), the ‘horses for courses’ selection has certainly served England well in the past. Sidebottom is an accurate left-armer who averages 25 in his first-class career and played one prior Test, in 2001, where he failed to take a wicket.
Sidebottom probably does not possess the necessary gifts for a long-term international career but, at Headingly, would certainly be a better bet than James Anderson, who, like so many young English bowlers, simply cannot be relied upon to bowl the ball on a length just outside off-stump. At Headingly, as Sidebottom, a former Yorkshire player, will testify, it is impossible to go wrong with that simple formula.
‘Horses for courses’ instantly evokes memories of Neil Mallender, who took 8-122 in the match against Pakistan in 1992, and Steve Watkin, who took 5-91 in the game against West Indies a year previously. Many quaint cricketing traditions have rather vanished in the modern era of uber-professionalism and central contracts, but not this. In 2003 James Kirtley won England a Test against South Africa in quintessentially English conditions (albeit at Trent Bridge), while Martin Bicknell’s recall came in that same summer. Initially picked for Headingly, he was given the last Test at his home ground too, where he helped bowl England to victory.
So, despite the odd Martin Saggers (who played unsuccessfully in 2004 against New Zealand), the ‘horses for courses’ selection has certainly served England well in the past. Sidebottom is an accurate left-armer who averages 25 in his first-class career and played one prior Test, in 2001, where he failed to take a wicket.
Sidebottom probably does not possess the necessary gifts for a long-term international career but, at Headingly, would certainly be a better bet than James Anderson, who, like so many young English bowlers, simply cannot be relied upon to bowl the ball on a length just outside off-stump. At Headingly, as Sidebottom, a former Yorkshire player, will testify, it is impossible to go wrong with that simple formula.
What next for topsy-turvy England?
Rarely can an England team have given such an uneven performance. Six players made it onto the Lords honours board, five are probably now wishing they hadn't bothered. As the team is selected for the next test today, what are the options ahead of the Selectors, and should they be held responsible for the previous selection?
The Successful six
Alistair Cook - He has started the season on form and scoring runs for fun. A brilliant century given the bowler friendly conditions in which he started, albeit against some pretty wayward bowling. Safe from the impact of the returning stars now and will look to make up for his disappointing Ashes series
Kevin Pietersen - Admitted to still being in One Day mode in the first innings, his second inning century was a masterclass in accelarating an innings. He seemed to slip back into One Day mode towards the end of the innings, getting out to an ugly reverse sweep. His "confrontation" with Chris Gayle was another highlight!
Paul Collingwood - They say there's no such thing as a bad century, but this got pretty close to it. Being dropped twice is one thing. The fact that they were both absolute sitters is another. He should also have been given out early in the innings, when umpire Rauf gave his one bad decision of the game. Still, if you're given a chance, then you have to capitalise, and he did that. One blinding catch in the slips and probably England's best seam bowler.
Ian Bell - Another match in England and another ton. That's four in the last five home games, the missing match being the abandoned game against Pakistan. As steady and chanceless as always, he allowed Prior to play his shots, while he just calmly moved along. He is still touted as the one to make way should Flintoff come back.
Matt Prior - What a debut! The batting was brutal, although the other batsmen had taken the pressure off somewhat. In particular, 21 off 9 balls int he second innings gave some impetus that only hte weather could take away. However, it was the keeping that was most impressive. Certainly tested by Harmison and Plunkett, he was tidy and in the end unlucky to concede the four byes that he did, as Monty fired one down the leg side and through the rough. My Man of the Match, and we won't be talking about the wicket-keeping position again for a little while.
Monty Panesar - His best bowling figures, thanks largely to some decent umpiring and wonderful control rather than outrageous turn. It's a good job he showed up otherwise the West Indies innings could have gone on until Christmas.
The Flawed Five
Andrew Strauss - This is beginning to get worrying for Strauss. Two starts and two loose shots while nicely set. This started in the winter, with freak dismissals and unfortunate umpiring decisions. However, it is now becoming a habit and he needs a big score and soon.
Owais Shah - Back to county crisket for a bit I fear. He didn't look comfortable in either of his brief innings, one glorious cover drive apart, despite having played at Lords all his life. He should now be left out to accomodate Michael Vaughan. He'll be back, hopefully via the One Day team where he should cement his place and gain some confidence at International cricket.
Matthew Hoggard - If ever we needed a fit firing Hoggy, this was the game. Unfortuantely injured after ten overs and that was it. The world's best bowler at left handers, if he'd have stayed fit, the chances of the West Indies avoiding the follow on would have been greatly reduced.
Liam Plunkett - In his defence, he's probably not played at Lords much and he seemed to struggle with the slope. Howeve, for someone who periodically shows himself to be an International class bowler, this was another huge step backwards. England have to understand what they need from him. Plunkett needs to understand discipline.
Steve Harmison - The top wicket taker in county cricket this season, bowling at a place where he takes wickets regularly (Lords was his only Five-fer in the Ashes series 2005) against the team that he made his reputation. What could possibly go wrong? And who could blame the selectors for picking him? Unfortunately, pretty much everything and everyone. He doesn't do himself any favours either by claiming he "has nothing to prove" or that he was pretty pleased with the way he bowled on Saturday. Hoggard's injury could give Harmison and Plunkett another chance, but the selectors must be praying that Simon Jones, Stuart Broad and Freddie are available sooner rather than later.
The second test
Michael Vaughan should rightly return as captain. He looked in pretty good nick for Yorkshire against Hampshire before breaking his finger and Owais Shah's scratchy performance shouldn't give the selectors a head-ache.
Andrew Flintoff should only return if able to replace a bowler. Paul Collingwood's performance with the ball shows that he can be trusted in the fifth bowler role and Flintoff's batting of late shows that he can only be seen as a bowler who can bat rather than the true all-rounder he was a couple of years ago. If he is fit, he would replace Plunkett in my team. Harmison survives on the basis of his county form this season, but he is certainly drinking in the last chance saloon.
James Anderson should come in as a direct replacement for Matthew Hoggard. He bowled well with little support in the World Cup and deserves another chance.
The Successful six
Alistair Cook - He has started the season on form and scoring runs for fun. A brilliant century given the bowler friendly conditions in which he started, albeit against some pretty wayward bowling. Safe from the impact of the returning stars now and will look to make up for his disappointing Ashes series
Kevin Pietersen - Admitted to still being in One Day mode in the first innings, his second inning century was a masterclass in accelarating an innings. He seemed to slip back into One Day mode towards the end of the innings, getting out to an ugly reverse sweep. His "confrontation" with Chris Gayle was another highlight!
Paul Collingwood - They say there's no such thing as a bad century, but this got pretty close to it. Being dropped twice is one thing. The fact that they were both absolute sitters is another. He should also have been given out early in the innings, when umpire Rauf gave his one bad decision of the game. Still, if you're given a chance, then you have to capitalise, and he did that. One blinding catch in the slips and probably England's best seam bowler.
Ian Bell - Another match in England and another ton. That's four in the last five home games, the missing match being the abandoned game against Pakistan. As steady and chanceless as always, he allowed Prior to play his shots, while he just calmly moved along. He is still touted as the one to make way should Flintoff come back.
Matt Prior - What a debut! The batting was brutal, although the other batsmen had taken the pressure off somewhat. In particular, 21 off 9 balls int he second innings gave some impetus that only hte weather could take away. However, it was the keeping that was most impressive. Certainly tested by Harmison and Plunkett, he was tidy and in the end unlucky to concede the four byes that he did, as Monty fired one down the leg side and through the rough. My Man of the Match, and we won't be talking about the wicket-keeping position again for a little while.
Monty Panesar - His best bowling figures, thanks largely to some decent umpiring and wonderful control rather than outrageous turn. It's a good job he showed up otherwise the West Indies innings could have gone on until Christmas.
The Flawed Five
Andrew Strauss - This is beginning to get worrying for Strauss. Two starts and two loose shots while nicely set. This started in the winter, with freak dismissals and unfortunate umpiring decisions. However, it is now becoming a habit and he needs a big score and soon.
Owais Shah - Back to county crisket for a bit I fear. He didn't look comfortable in either of his brief innings, one glorious cover drive apart, despite having played at Lords all his life. He should now be left out to accomodate Michael Vaughan. He'll be back, hopefully via the One Day team where he should cement his place and gain some confidence at International cricket.
Matthew Hoggard - If ever we needed a fit firing Hoggy, this was the game. Unfortuantely injured after ten overs and that was it. The world's best bowler at left handers, if he'd have stayed fit, the chances of the West Indies avoiding the follow on would have been greatly reduced.
Liam Plunkett - In his defence, he's probably not played at Lords much and he seemed to struggle with the slope. Howeve, for someone who periodically shows himself to be an International class bowler, this was another huge step backwards. England have to understand what they need from him. Plunkett needs to understand discipline.
Steve Harmison - The top wicket taker in county cricket this season, bowling at a place where he takes wickets regularly (Lords was his only Five-fer in the Ashes series 2005) against the team that he made his reputation. What could possibly go wrong? And who could blame the selectors for picking him? Unfortunately, pretty much everything and everyone. He doesn't do himself any favours either by claiming he "has nothing to prove" or that he was pretty pleased with the way he bowled on Saturday. Hoggard's injury could give Harmison and Plunkett another chance, but the selectors must be praying that Simon Jones, Stuart Broad and Freddie are available sooner rather than later.
The second test
Michael Vaughan should rightly return as captain. He looked in pretty good nick for Yorkshire against Hampshire before breaking his finger and Owais Shah's scratchy performance shouldn't give the selectors a head-ache.
Andrew Flintoff should only return if able to replace a bowler. Paul Collingwood's performance with the ball shows that he can be trusted in the fifth bowler role and Flintoff's batting of late shows that he can only be seen as a bowler who can bat rather than the true all-rounder he was a couple of years ago. If he is fit, he would replace Plunkett in my team. Harmison survives on the basis of his county form this season, but he is certainly drinking in the last chance saloon.
James Anderson should come in as a direct replacement for Matthew Hoggard. He bowled well with little support in the World Cup and deserves another chance.
Monday, 14 May 2007
Prior Knowledge
Matt Prior has failed at the start of this campaign, but he has worked his way up over a number of seasons, and deserves his chance. Essentially, Prior should aim to be what we thought Geraint Jones would turn out to be: not a natural keeper, but one constantly improving; and a batsman good enough to average 35 over a significant period of time.
Prior has done disappointingly in 12 ODIs to date, but 11 of these were in the subcontinent batting inside the top three. Last summer, he averaged 46 and, for the second time in four years, played a vital part in a Sussex Championship triumph. In total, he averages very nearly 40 in first-class cricket and has already scored 12 hundreds. Considering the vast majority of these games have been in Division One and he is only 25, these stats are testament to his potential.
Prior is a reasonably brash personality, but clearly gets on very well with Peter Moores. Although James Foster, Jon Batty and especially Paul Nixon, amongst a multitude of candidates, will feel a little aggrieved, the indications are that the selectors believe Prior to have the most batting aptitude of all the candidates. Going batting over keeping, however, is an indication that England do not want to abandon their policy of playing Andrew Flintoff at six as part of a five-man attack.
Prior has done disappointingly in 12 ODIs to date, but 11 of these were in the subcontinent batting inside the top three. Last summer, he averaged 46 and, for the second time in four years, played a vital part in a Sussex Championship triumph. In total, he averages very nearly 40 in first-class cricket and has already scored 12 hundreds. Considering the vast majority of these games have been in Division One and he is only 25, these stats are testament to his potential.
Prior is a reasonably brash personality, but clearly gets on very well with Peter Moores. Although James Foster, Jon Batty and especially Paul Nixon, amongst a multitude of candidates, will feel a little aggrieved, the indications are that the selectors believe Prior to have the most batting aptitude of all the candidates. Going batting over keeping, however, is an indication that England do not want to abandon their policy of playing Andrew Flintoff at six as part of a five-man attack.
Saturday, 12 May 2007
Harmison makes himself undroppable
Steve Harmison rightly received much criticism after a dire winter in which he not only bowled poorly in the Ashes but, almost unbelievably, retired from ODIs just a few months before the World Cup. His attitude was called into question for the umpteenth time. In short, many – possibly including Duncan Fletcher – had had enough of the 28-year-old enigma, so obviously richly talented but, equally, apparently too mentally frail to perform when his side needed him most.
Yet if we criticise him when he under performs it is only right to praise him when he does deliver. He has not played for England since the humiliation of the Ashes, but has made himself undroppable with some sterling performances for Durham. Critics will sneer and point out he is only playing county cricket when there is relatively little pressure on, but he has taken 24 wickets in three Division One games, a phenomenal start. Today, in tandem with Liam Plunkett, he bowled his side to victory on a relatively docile pitch, taking 5-61 and bowling 19.3 overs out of 50.3.
It must be hoped that Peter Moores acknowledges what Duncan Fletcher failed to grasp – that Harmison, more than almost any other bowler, is a man who needs overs in the middle. Could the series against the West Indies, against whom he made his name, mark the birth of a new, more consistent Harmison?
Yet if we criticise him when he under performs it is only right to praise him when he does deliver. He has not played for England since the humiliation of the Ashes, but has made himself undroppable with some sterling performances for Durham. Critics will sneer and point out he is only playing county cricket when there is relatively little pressure on, but he has taken 24 wickets in three Division One games, a phenomenal start. Today, in tandem with Liam Plunkett, he bowled his side to victory on a relatively docile pitch, taking 5-61 and bowling 19.3 overs out of 50.3.
It must be hoped that Peter Moores acknowledges what Duncan Fletcher failed to grasp – that Harmison, more than almost any other bowler, is a man who needs overs in the middle. Could the series against the West Indies, against whom he made his name, mark the birth of a new, more consistent Harmison?
Saturday, 5 May 2007
The Flintoff Conundrum
After their winter of discontent, England have a number of pressing decisions to make, even after opting for a change in coach. Michael Vaughan’s latest injury, likely to keep him out for at least one Test, has re-opened the perennial captaincy debate, although it is hard to see beyond Andrew Strauss. But Peter Moores must now ponder whether Andrew Flintoff is a) good enough to bat at number six and b) fit enough to be one of only four bowlers. If the answer to both questions is no then it would defy rationale for Flintoff to play in the First Test.
Of course, England want Flintoff in their side, for he offers proven match-winning pedigree with bat and ball. It is just that he seems a man either completely jaded and has not even approached his best form, with bat or ball, since the India tour in early 2006. His batting has totally disintegrated, and is bereft of either confidence or any form of coherent thinking. He looks totally confused, and is incapable of doing anything other than blocking unconvincingly or attacking, normally at the expense of his wicket. All winter long, he has played only two knocks that have convinced – a well-judged 89 in the Fifth Test and 72* in a ODI at Hobart. Those innings excepted he has, in truth, looked little like a number seven, let alone a number six.
Meanwhile his bowling has remained lion-hearted, albeit seldom incisive, and concerns over his ankle forced England to play five bowlers in the Ashes – with hindsight it was a terrible decision, leaving England terribly exposed in both disciplines.
In Test cricket, going in a batsman down is almost the equivalent of playing with a man down in football – and this effect is particularly great given it has been a long time since numbers seven, eight and nine have convinced for England. Playing Matt Prior as six, as some have suggested, would be ridiculous; he is nowhere near being one of England’s top six batsmen. Meanwhile, the inconsistency of Messrs Mahmood, Plunkett and Anderson means there is little to be gained from playing a fifth bowler.
England would be best served, then, by playing their best six batsmen, their best keeper-batsman, and their best four bowlers – of which Flintoff clearly is one – and getting 10 overs a day from the likes of Pietersen, Vaughan and Collingwood. Flintoff would offer immense destructive potential at number seven; relieved of some pressure, he may be able to regain confidence and play with more freedom. But, if he is not fit enough to form part of a four-man attack, then it would be far better all round for Flintoff to regain form and appetite for the game at Lancashire.
At this stage, my Test XI for the West Indies series would be:
Strauss (captain)
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Shah (probably replaced by Vaughan when he returns)
Collingwood
Flintoff (if not fit, then either Broad or Plunkett)
Nixon
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar
Of course, England want Flintoff in their side, for he offers proven match-winning pedigree with bat and ball. It is just that he seems a man either completely jaded and has not even approached his best form, with bat or ball, since the India tour in early 2006. His batting has totally disintegrated, and is bereft of either confidence or any form of coherent thinking. He looks totally confused, and is incapable of doing anything other than blocking unconvincingly or attacking, normally at the expense of his wicket. All winter long, he has played only two knocks that have convinced – a well-judged 89 in the Fifth Test and 72* in a ODI at Hobart. Those innings excepted he has, in truth, looked little like a number seven, let alone a number six.
Meanwhile his bowling has remained lion-hearted, albeit seldom incisive, and concerns over his ankle forced England to play five bowlers in the Ashes – with hindsight it was a terrible decision, leaving England terribly exposed in both disciplines.
In Test cricket, going in a batsman down is almost the equivalent of playing with a man down in football – and this effect is particularly great given it has been a long time since numbers seven, eight and nine have convinced for England. Playing Matt Prior as six, as some have suggested, would be ridiculous; he is nowhere near being one of England’s top six batsmen. Meanwhile, the inconsistency of Messrs Mahmood, Plunkett and Anderson means there is little to be gained from playing a fifth bowler.
England would be best served, then, by playing their best six batsmen, their best keeper-batsman, and their best four bowlers – of which Flintoff clearly is one – and getting 10 overs a day from the likes of Pietersen, Vaughan and Collingwood. Flintoff would offer immense destructive potential at number seven; relieved of some pressure, he may be able to regain confidence and play with more freedom. But, if he is not fit enough to form part of a four-man attack, then it would be far better all round for Flintoff to regain form and appetite for the game at Lancashire.
At this stage, my Test XI for the West Indies series would be:
Strauss (captain)
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Shah (probably replaced by Vaughan when he returns)
Collingwood
Flintoff (if not fit, then either Broad or Plunkett)
Nixon
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)