Whilst the media circus is frenzying around the appointment of the new England Cricket Captain and his first Test match in charge, the announcement of the limited overs squad to take on South Africa has passed relatively under the radar. Whatever the rights and wrongs of who is and is not in the Test squad, it is hard to argue that the limited overs squad is far wrong, especially after the inclusion of two of the best domestic one day players in England this year, in Samit Patel and Matt Prior.
Andrew Flintoff’s return essentially allows England to replace a pace bowler with an allrounder and a brilliant one at that. More importantly though, England seem to have decided that they want an aggressive keeper batsman who can open the innings and indeed bat through it if required. The only candidate capable of this job was Matt Prior and he has rightfully been recalled. Whilst Phil Mustard is aggressive, he has not often made the big match defining innings required of a top order batsman. If Prior gets to fifty you now sense that he could go on to a hundred. There will of course be those who criticise his selection as compromising on wicket keeping ability. However, Prior’s mistakes with the gloves came in Test cricket, not limited overs cricket, where the demands of concentration and focus are not as severe on keepers as in Test match cricket, where the keeper can find himself in the field for 90 overs a day, three days out of five, as opposed to just 50 overs. Because of the very nature of the ODI and Twenty20 games there are not as many catches for keepers either and in fact there are more stumping and run out opportunities, which are Prior’s strong point as a keeper. He has also been working extremely hard at Sussex on his keeping, which has reportedly improved and he has been churning out the runs consistently.
With Kevin Pietersen now rightfully elevated to number three in the batting line-up, from where he can dictate the innings, England’s top three looks very strong, with Ian Bell acting as the foil around whom the others can bat, but whom himself can also take advantage of the Powerplay overs, with his brilliant footwork and ability to hit over the top. England need to reassess who bats at four however. Owais Shah gave a master class in limited overs batting on Monday for Middlesex against Somerset, as he essentially won the game for his side with a brilliantly paced 96. Batting at number three he rescued his side from what could easily have been humiliation and almost single handedly set a competitive target. He has comfortably been the best England One Day player over the last year and the most consistent. He has previously had to settle for late order cameos for England, coming in at number six. He is though a top order batsman and is especially adept at milking the spinners, with his wristy strokeplay. England should utilise his skills earlier and for longer and he, not Ravi Bopara, should be coming in at four.
Bopara you sense needs to settle in the side and would benefit from having the pressure taken off his shoulders for now by coming in at number six. He has played his best innings for England down the order and the nature of the position would help him to flourish I believe, as he would be capable of playing a patient rebuilding game or an aggressive cameo. The situation would not allow him time to think about what he was doing, how fast he was scoring or how much pressure he was under. A settled Bopara could then look to work his way up the order at a later date, although he looks the natural successor to Paul Collingwood long term. Collingwood himself will of course bat at number five, the position he has so expertly made his own over the last few years.
Flintoff should be scheduled to bat at number seven, although he could of course be promoted depending on the match situation. Whatever happens you don’t want Flintoff in before the last ten to fifteen overs against the spinners, or you risk losing him before the period in which he can inflict the most damage, against the faster bowlers. Doubling the power down the order, Luke Wright should feature at number eight. His best innings for England have come down the order and he could be given full license here to unleash his power in the death overs. With two such power hitters lurking down the order, the side would be well balanced and filled with matchwinners and therefore the pressure would be relieved on the likes of Pietersen and Flintoff, who would be able to perform with more freedom.
With Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann following in the order, the batting could not be any stronger, with number eleven James Anderson also far from being the rabbit he used to be. Broad would for me bat above Swann, as he has more potential and skill with the bat and has two modes of play. Both could cause damage at the end of the innings if required. So the batting line-up looks formidable, with Alistair Cook and Samit Patel on standby, along with Ryan Sidebottom and Chris Tremlett in this particular squad. Whilst Paul Collingwood is suspended I would play Samit Patel, who should remain a part of the squad to play in place of either Bopara or Wright on those pitches which offer more for spinners. He would be an able second spinner I believe.
So who is unlucky? Well, Mascarenhas is obviously one who is unfortunate to be discarded altogether, whilst Vikram Solanki is another, who after his scintillating domestic form was perhaps worthy of a look in. On the bowling front, Kabir Ali has been the best bowler in domestic cricket this year and could add another wicket taking option to the line-up, whilst Liam Plunkett, so good in Australia, is looking to prove his form and fitness. Finally, Mustard and more so James Foster are unfortunate to lose out to Prior. Foster would have been the ideal candidate to play down the order for England, as he does for Essex with such aplomb. The way England are going to play dictates that he is not in the side however.
The bowling looks stronger for the return of Flintoff for Sidebottom, whose figures (Average: 44.37, Economy: 4.86, S/R: 54.7) are hardly impressive over the last few series against New Zealand. There are also questions over his fitness. England would look threatening with three impressive and contrasting One Day performers in Anderson, Broad and Flintoff, who offer swing, seam, bounce, pace and consistency between them. The vastly improved Swann would offer the wiley spin option. Meanwhile, the fifth bowling options are plentiful with the recently impressive Collingwood well supported by the likes of Bopara and the impressive death bowling of Luke Wright. Samit Patel, when playing would offer a decent second spinning option, with Shah available if needed.
The Test match series may have gone against South Africa and it may yet be a complete disaster. However, England are making progress in Limited Overs cricket, albeit with recent defeats to New Zealand, both home and away. They have beaten Australia (a), India (h) and Sri Lanka (a) in the last 18 months, which would have been unthinkable two years ago. South Africa are currently the best ODI side in the world and for good reason. However, England have picked a squad capable of challenging them and even beating them. England are capable of beating any team in the world. Hopefully Pietersen’s brand of captaincy will encourage his charges to be bold and aggressive and play the kind of cricket we all know that they can play.
England ODI Team to take on South Africa:
Ian Bell
Matt Prior (wk)
Kevin Pietersen (c)
Owais Shah
Paul Collingwood
Ravi Bopara
Andrew Flintoff
Luke Wright
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
James Anderson
Squad: Alistair Cook, Samit Patel, Dimitri Mascarenhas, Kabir Ali.
Showing posts with label Luke Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luke Wright. Show all posts
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Monday, 30 June 2008
England ODI Ratings
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.
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.
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Players moving up, England moving forward
For those of you who are regular readers you will be all too familiar with my musings over the years about the England One Day International side. Finally we seem to be making some progress.
Firstly, Alistair Cook is no longer opening the innings, fabulous. He is undoubtedly a fantastically talented Test match cricketer, albeit slightly out of form at present, but he is just not a modern day limited overs batsman. Ian Bell has at last been elevated to the role of opener, one he has enjoyed success in before. His innings against the Australians at the last World Cup demonstrated that he could score quickly, through a vast array of strokes. Notably he has the ability to use his feet and hit over the top, something Cook patently struggles with.
Secondly, and I want to scream hallelujah here, England’s best batsmen, Kevin Pietersen, has finally been elevated to number three! Many of us have only been looking for this change for the past two and a half years, but better late than never as they say. From number three Pietersen can dictate the innings for England and spend the maximum amount of time at the crease (other than if he opened of course!). The best player in a side regularly bats at number three and it is of major importance in limited overs cricket.
Luke Wright has been re-elevated to the role of opener, a role he has yet to really succeed in for England (though his brisk fifty today is a good start). He has enjoyed success down the order coming in against the old ball, should he be left down there to do what he does best? It is a difficult question to answer. Undoubtedly he should be given the rest of this series to readjust to opening. One thing for sure is that he should be in the side. His fielding and surprisingly effective death bowling certainly add to a developing unit. We must hope that he can succeed as an opener as the alternatives are limited and once Andrew Flintoff returns, there will still be plenty of power down the order.
The lack of an aggressive opener has been the failing of the England side over the last few years. Often the wicket keeper opens as the aggressor. However, it can’t be Tim Ambrose, as he has neither the technique nor the experience for the role. Whilst on the subject of Ambrose, I wonder how effective he will prove to be so low down the order, as he plays higher up for Warwickshire and does not seem to have the game to come in late and provide a brisk cameo. His performances will be under review no doubt. As Ambrose is the current incumbent keeper, it doesn’t appear as though the aggressive opener will be Phil Mustard, especially given his woeful recent form and limited stroke play at the highest level. Matt Prior, for all his runs, does not currently have the glove work to back them up and he is having to serve more time in county cricket for the time being. Steven Davies and Craig Kieswetter, two young wicket keepers, could yet be tried in the role, but their debuts are unlikely for a few years yet.
Other than Wright that leaves only specialist batsmen. Of them, Owais Shah, Jonathon Trott, Vikram Solanki, Michael Carberry, Joe Denly and James Benning are the main contenders. Shah is undoubtedly a great player of spin and a wonderful exponent of the limited overs batting art, who is currently batting too low for his talent at six. Elevating him to opener takes him away from the spinning ball though and exposes him to the new ball, which has at international level in the past seen his downfall. He is probably best left to bat at four. Of the remaining men, Solanki is a fantastic cricketer and agile fieldsmen. He has had many opportunities in an England shirt already though and has failed to convince, but he has rarely had a sustained run in one position. Trott is another candidate, who made it into Peter Moores’ first limited overs squad, playing two Twenty20 matches against the West Indies before being discarded. He often opens for Warwickshire in limited overs cricket, has a safe pair of hands and is a capable medium pace bowler. Meanwhile, Carberry is an electric fielder, blessed with Wesley Snipes’ Blade’s turn of pace. He has enjoyed success for the England Lions on a number of occasions, most notably in India over the winter, where he averaged 47 in three First Class games and 58.33 in three List A games. He scored two hundreds and two fifties. A lefty, he would compliment Bell and leave England with that all important right hand-left hand combination. Fellow Lion Denly is young and technically sound, but he is more likely to make his breakthrough in Test match cricket at the moment. Finally, Benning, whilst a fine striker of the ball, is not the most talented and is rather predictable with his constant search for leg side blows.
There is one further possible contender and that is Graeme Swann, who has often been the pinch hitter for Nottinghamshire in the past. He would not be capable of building an innings however and would be unlikely to average in excess of 20, which at international level is going to leave you in trouble. He is also far from a certainty in the side, with both Monty Panesar and Adil Rashid eager to take his place. If Wright is not successful in the role then I would seriously consider getting a wicket keeper into the team who can open once again, with Wright dropping down the order. There hasn’t been a problem so far with having two different captains, so I fail to see the difference in having two different wicket keepers. Prior, Mustard, Davies and Kieswetter could all fit the bill in my opinion. If not, then space would have to be found in the side for a specialist batsman to open. Ultimately, most of the other players mentioned, including Wright, can do well enough in the role to make England competitive again in One Day International cricket and that is down to the new formula which coach Moores and captain Paul Collingwood have devised. Exciting aggressive multi-dimensional cricketers now comprise the squad, with Test specialists left to do what they do best.
With Flintoff yet to return, the side is shaping up nicely and furthermore it seems as if only four specialist bowlers are required, with the likes of Collingwood, Wright, Ravi Bopara, Pietersen and Shah all capable of making up the fifth and final bowler. That will leave England with a nice dilemma when Flintoff does make his comeback in an England shirt. One of Stuart Broad, Ryan Sidebottom or James Anderson may have to make way. In the last 12 months Anderson has averaged 36.14 with the ball, at a strike rate of 40.1, with an economy of 5.39 in ODI’s against the West Indies, India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. That is not good enough and is made worse by the fact that in that time England have not once played either of the two leading ODI sides. He is most under pressure, along with Sidebottom, who whilst economical, has not taken as many wickets against New Zealand as he would have liked.
Meanwhile, Dimitri Mascarenhas can consider himself unfortunate to miss out on a place in the first choice XI, but his place appears to have been taken by Bopara, who unlike him, can bat in the top seven, though he will need to curb his penchant for a run out. Mascarenhas is a certainty for the Twenty20 side however and will still probably get the odd game in place of the spinner, depending on conditions. He will hopefully make up the selection pool, which would also feature Cook, Trott, Panesar and Anderson.
A potential England side of:
Bell
Mustard / Prior (wk)
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood (c)
Bopara
Wright
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Sidebottom
will hopefully be taking to the field sooner rather than later and challenging the rest of the world for limited overs trophies once again.
Firstly, Alistair Cook is no longer opening the innings, fabulous. He is undoubtedly a fantastically talented Test match cricketer, albeit slightly out of form at present, but he is just not a modern day limited overs batsman. Ian Bell has at last been elevated to the role of opener, one he has enjoyed success in before. His innings against the Australians at the last World Cup demonstrated that he could score quickly, through a vast array of strokes. Notably he has the ability to use his feet and hit over the top, something Cook patently struggles with.
Secondly, and I want to scream hallelujah here, England’s best batsmen, Kevin Pietersen, has finally been elevated to number three! Many of us have only been looking for this change for the past two and a half years, but better late than never as they say. From number three Pietersen can dictate the innings for England and spend the maximum amount of time at the crease (other than if he opened of course!). The best player in a side regularly bats at number three and it is of major importance in limited overs cricket.
Luke Wright has been re-elevated to the role of opener, a role he has yet to really succeed in for England (though his brisk fifty today is a good start). He has enjoyed success down the order coming in against the old ball, should he be left down there to do what he does best? It is a difficult question to answer. Undoubtedly he should be given the rest of this series to readjust to opening. One thing for sure is that he should be in the side. His fielding and surprisingly effective death bowling certainly add to a developing unit. We must hope that he can succeed as an opener as the alternatives are limited and once Andrew Flintoff returns, there will still be plenty of power down the order.
The lack of an aggressive opener has been the failing of the England side over the last few years. Often the wicket keeper opens as the aggressor. However, it can’t be Tim Ambrose, as he has neither the technique nor the experience for the role. Whilst on the subject of Ambrose, I wonder how effective he will prove to be so low down the order, as he plays higher up for Warwickshire and does not seem to have the game to come in late and provide a brisk cameo. His performances will be under review no doubt. As Ambrose is the current incumbent keeper, it doesn’t appear as though the aggressive opener will be Phil Mustard, especially given his woeful recent form and limited stroke play at the highest level. Matt Prior, for all his runs, does not currently have the glove work to back them up and he is having to serve more time in county cricket for the time being. Steven Davies and Craig Kieswetter, two young wicket keepers, could yet be tried in the role, but their debuts are unlikely for a few years yet.
Other than Wright that leaves only specialist batsmen. Of them, Owais Shah, Jonathon Trott, Vikram Solanki, Michael Carberry, Joe Denly and James Benning are the main contenders. Shah is undoubtedly a great player of spin and a wonderful exponent of the limited overs batting art, who is currently batting too low for his talent at six. Elevating him to opener takes him away from the spinning ball though and exposes him to the new ball, which has at international level in the past seen his downfall. He is probably best left to bat at four. Of the remaining men, Solanki is a fantastic cricketer and agile fieldsmen. He has had many opportunities in an England shirt already though and has failed to convince, but he has rarely had a sustained run in one position. Trott is another candidate, who made it into Peter Moores’ first limited overs squad, playing two Twenty20 matches against the West Indies before being discarded. He often opens for Warwickshire in limited overs cricket, has a safe pair of hands and is a capable medium pace bowler. Meanwhile, Carberry is an electric fielder, blessed with Wesley Snipes’ Blade’s turn of pace. He has enjoyed success for the England Lions on a number of occasions, most notably in India over the winter, where he averaged 47 in three First Class games and 58.33 in three List A games. He scored two hundreds and two fifties. A lefty, he would compliment Bell and leave England with that all important right hand-left hand combination. Fellow Lion Denly is young and technically sound, but he is more likely to make his breakthrough in Test match cricket at the moment. Finally, Benning, whilst a fine striker of the ball, is not the most talented and is rather predictable with his constant search for leg side blows.
There is one further possible contender and that is Graeme Swann, who has often been the pinch hitter for Nottinghamshire in the past. He would not be capable of building an innings however and would be unlikely to average in excess of 20, which at international level is going to leave you in trouble. He is also far from a certainty in the side, with both Monty Panesar and Adil Rashid eager to take his place. If Wright is not successful in the role then I would seriously consider getting a wicket keeper into the team who can open once again, with Wright dropping down the order. There hasn’t been a problem so far with having two different captains, so I fail to see the difference in having two different wicket keepers. Prior, Mustard, Davies and Kieswetter could all fit the bill in my opinion. If not, then space would have to be found in the side for a specialist batsman to open. Ultimately, most of the other players mentioned, including Wright, can do well enough in the role to make England competitive again in One Day International cricket and that is down to the new formula which coach Moores and captain Paul Collingwood have devised. Exciting aggressive multi-dimensional cricketers now comprise the squad, with Test specialists left to do what they do best.
With Flintoff yet to return, the side is shaping up nicely and furthermore it seems as if only four specialist bowlers are required, with the likes of Collingwood, Wright, Ravi Bopara, Pietersen and Shah all capable of making up the fifth and final bowler. That will leave England with a nice dilemma when Flintoff does make his comeback in an England shirt. One of Stuart Broad, Ryan Sidebottom or James Anderson may have to make way. In the last 12 months Anderson has averaged 36.14 with the ball, at a strike rate of 40.1, with an economy of 5.39 in ODI’s against the West Indies, India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. That is not good enough and is made worse by the fact that in that time England have not once played either of the two leading ODI sides. He is most under pressure, along with Sidebottom, who whilst economical, has not taken as many wickets against New Zealand as he would have liked.
Meanwhile, Dimitri Mascarenhas can consider himself unfortunate to miss out on a place in the first choice XI, but his place appears to have been taken by Bopara, who unlike him, can bat in the top seven, though he will need to curb his penchant for a run out. Mascarenhas is a certainty for the Twenty20 side however and will still probably get the odd game in place of the spinner, depending on conditions. He will hopefully make up the selection pool, which would also feature Cook, Trott, Panesar and Anderson.
A potential England side of:
Bell
Mustard / Prior (wk)
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood (c)
Bopara
Wright
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Sidebottom
will hopefully be taking to the field sooner rather than later and challenging the rest of the world for limited overs trophies once again.
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.
Friday, 9 May 2008
Rose Bowl Rocks to Wright!
I was fortunate enough to get a glimpse of the England Lions in action yesterday afternoon against New Zealand at The Rose Bowl. When I turned up England were in trouble at 132-5, but the 34 runs put on since the last wicket represented what was a good partnership so far in the match. Luke Wright was batting with Adil Rashid and I doubt that it will be the last time that these two bat together in England colours. Both are exceedingly promising allrounders, Rashid perhaps more with his leg spin bowling and Wright perhaps more with his explosive batting.
Adil Rashid shows solid defenceWright looked every bit a class player as he demonstrated maturity in building a partnership with Rashid. Rashid was more circumspect and watchful, but looked a solid and compact player, who combined solid defence with an ability to work the ball around and manoeuvre the field, a good sign for the future of the ODI side maybe. Wright soon reached his fifty, having punished both Iain O’Brien and Jeetan Patel for erring at times in line and length. He hit three fours off of one particular O’Brien over, the first a blistering cover drive, the second a hefty pull and the third a sublime square cut.
Luke Wright square cuts for four more off of Iain O'Brien
Jacob Oram was brought on for the tourists and immediately looked dangerous. Indeed it was not long before he had Rashid caught well in the covers by Patel, before Graeme Swann was out, in rather silly fashion, playing a rash shot and adjudged lbw. Meanwhile, as partners came and went, next to fall was Tremlett, Wright went about steadily increasing his own scoring rate. His concentration was excellent and he seemed hell bent on getting that all important century. Matthew Hoggard provided an able foil for the Sussex man, getting a few boundaries down to third man and even clipping the spin of Patel to leg a couple of times. Perhaps Hoggy has his eye on the allrounder role, it wouldn’t be a surprise given his determination to get back into that England side (the same can hardly be said of Steve Harmison from recent interviews). So with able support, Wright was able to complete a fantastic century at a strike rate of around 84. Here he is reaching the landmark with a six (he was on 95).
Luke Wright brings up his 100 with a maximumThat says a lot for the player in my opinion, to have the guts to go for it when he could have just taken singles. He is obviously a confident player who trusts his own ability, which is a key mental attribute at international level.
Wright celebrates with Matthew HoggardOnce Hoggard was clean bowled by young Tim Southee, Wright was forced to up the anti. He hit a few more boundaries, including a glorious straight six off of Chris Martin, but the England innings was over when, like Rashid, he was well caught in the covers, smashing another cover drive, this time in the air to Oram. Wright had scored 120 of England’s 280 runs, very impressive, and he had effectively rescued them from embarrassment against a much changed and depleted New Zealand side.
Jacob Oram was impressive with the ballSo what of the future for Luke Wright. Well, after this showing one can only be impressed. His excellent cameos for England in Twenty20 and ODI cricket appear to be only the cusp of a wave which is set to roll in over the international scene. Granted this was only against a depleted New Zealand side, but the bowling of Oram, Martin, Southee and Patel can not be dismissed as average and the fact that the next highest scorer in the England innings was Michael Carberry, with a painstakingly ground out 42, shows that ball was dominating bat until Wright came to the crease. His batting is undoubtedly his stronger suit, although his bowling has shown signs of improvement this season and who can forget that over which he bowled during the winter to win the game at the death for England? He clearly is a mentally strong cricketer, who is capable of adapting to different situations. He must be utilised lower down the order, rather than as a pinch hitter, as he has now proven that he operates best around number six or seven. Andrew Flintoff, most definitely now a bowling allrounder, could be well complemented in the future by Wright, a batting allrounder.
Luke Wright, 120Watch out for Luke Wright this summer, he is coming and he is coming hard and fast!
Monday, 14 April 2008
Thoughts from the first viewing (II)
Such a good title, I had to nick it to give my thoughts about the MCC v Sussex match.
I only caught days two and three, so missed the Sussex first innings collapse (though caught up with it on the SussexTV highlights) and it seems that we are still susceptible to doing this in bowler friendly conditions. . After the match, Adams said that his reason for batting was because he believed the Rose Bowl would be similar conditions and that we needed to practice in them, so I guess that is fair enough and it is clearly something we need to work on as it has been the weak point of the side for several seasons.
Onto what I did see and I must say that the signs are looking very good.
Bowling
First of all, a word about Harris. Whilst it is dangerous to jump to too many conclusions on the basis of one match , he looks like he has the potential to fill the gap left by Rana. On this performance he looked to be on the quicker side of fast-medium, bowled on a good length, accurate and able to swing both the new and old ball in both directions. Whilst I can't comment on Kirby's 1st day performance, he was certainly the pick of the bowlers on show in the next two days.
Lewry only bowled 6 overs, didn't feature on day 2 and is out for at least two weeks, having picked up a leg injury. He will be missed but perhaps it is better that this happened here than at the Rose Bowl.
Martin-Jenkins was his usual steady self and made the batsmen play more often than not. He picked up the wicket of Foster, who unfortunately looked very badly out of sorts at the moment.
Luke Wright bowled with fire, as both Shah and Kirby will testify, but on the whole perhaps a little too short and not quite accurate enough to make the batsmen play on a regular basis but certainly signs of improvement on previous years and will be a very useful option as 4th seamer in the regular season.
The two new boys also performed creditably. Aga picked up the wicket of Tredwell and impressed many with the swing he generated. Perhaps his miracle ball against Glamorgan earlier in the pre-season is something he can produce on a regular basis. Beer showed great temperament after being hit for two 4s in quick succession by Harinath, gaining immediate revenge by having him caught by Prior with what looked from side on to be a top spinner or googly.
Batting
Like many, I was a bit surprised at Hopkinson's inclusion ahead of Hodd but given the management's recent record on such calls, it would be wrong to make to many criticisms. The reason is Hodd's lack of opening experience, so he is likely to be opening for the 2ndXI and will certainly be pressing for a reversal of the decision.
The other opening position will not be up for grabs for a while yet. Nash showed that he has grown into the role after a creditable performance last year by following the first innings top score with a well crafted 90.
Of Shreck's three victims, both Yardy and Prior looked to be in decent nick before misjudgements gave their wickets away but Adams, who can be a relatively slow starter in a season, looked less fluent. He was a little early on his shot the penultimate ball of his innings and very early on his dismissal, lobbing a gentle catch back to the bowler. Perhaps some credit to the bowler there as it did look a slightly slower delivery and he may have been bowling for it.
It is unlikely Wright will ever have a chanceless knock of any substance but after a few wafts and scares early on (some sweetly timed shots too) he got his head down set about building a fine innings. Plenty of power and placement and unfazed by a rain break, completed a fine century just before tea (and more rain) by hammering three fours off an Onions over. On the next resumption he set off his own brand fireworks for the very few who stayed to the death.
Martin-Jenkins also showed his ability with the bat with a half century at almost a run a ball, comfortably outscoring Wright in a 100 partnership. He should perhaps have been stumped in his 20s, when he dragged his foot out of the crease to Tredwell (the pick of the MCC attack by a long way in the second innings) but he was fortunate that Foster rather grabbed at the ball in his haste. However, this was pretty much the only chance offered in a typically aggressive innings.
Overall
Before Lewry's injury it was pretty certain that Aga and Beer would be the ones to make way for Goodwin and Mushtaq in the upcoming Hampshire match but the former is probably now in a three way battle with Kirtley and Liddle, who was very impressive bowling off a short run in the nets to Goodwin. It is a tough choice but not an unpleasant one and whichever it is will add another dimension to what already looks to be a good attack in fine form. If the batting can overcome its first innings woes, with Wright and RMJ at 7 and 8 and three bowlers who at least know how to bat a bit, there is enough depth to have confidence against any county bowling attack.
I only caught days two and three, so missed the Sussex first innings collapse (though caught up with it on the SussexTV highlights) and it seems that we are still susceptible to doing this in bowler friendly conditions. . After the match, Adams said that his reason for batting was because he believed the Rose Bowl would be similar conditions and that we needed to practice in them, so I guess that is fair enough and it is clearly something we need to work on as it has been the weak point of the side for several seasons.
Onto what I did see and I must say that the signs are looking very good.
Bowling
First of all, a word about Harris. Whilst it is dangerous to jump to too many conclusions on the basis of one match , he looks like he has the potential to fill the gap left by Rana. On this performance he looked to be on the quicker side of fast-medium, bowled on a good length, accurate and able to swing both the new and old ball in both directions. Whilst I can't comment on Kirby's 1st day performance, he was certainly the pick of the bowlers on show in the next two days.
Lewry only bowled 6 overs, didn't feature on day 2 and is out for at least two weeks, having picked up a leg injury. He will be missed but perhaps it is better that this happened here than at the Rose Bowl.
Martin-Jenkins was his usual steady self and made the batsmen play more often than not. He picked up the wicket of Foster, who unfortunately looked very badly out of sorts at the moment.
Luke Wright bowled with fire, as both Shah and Kirby will testify, but on the whole perhaps a little too short and not quite accurate enough to make the batsmen play on a regular basis but certainly signs of improvement on previous years and will be a very useful option as 4th seamer in the regular season.
The two new boys also performed creditably. Aga picked up the wicket of Tredwell and impressed many with the swing he generated. Perhaps his miracle ball against Glamorgan earlier in the pre-season is something he can produce on a regular basis. Beer showed great temperament after being hit for two 4s in quick succession by Harinath, gaining immediate revenge by having him caught by Prior with what looked from side on to be a top spinner or googly.
Batting
Like many, I was a bit surprised at Hopkinson's inclusion ahead of Hodd but given the management's recent record on such calls, it would be wrong to make to many criticisms. The reason is Hodd's lack of opening experience, so he is likely to be opening for the 2ndXI and will certainly be pressing for a reversal of the decision.
The other opening position will not be up for grabs for a while yet. Nash showed that he has grown into the role after a creditable performance last year by following the first innings top score with a well crafted 90.
Of Shreck's three victims, both Yardy and Prior looked to be in decent nick before misjudgements gave their wickets away but Adams, who can be a relatively slow starter in a season, looked less fluent. He was a little early on his shot the penultimate ball of his innings and very early on his dismissal, lobbing a gentle catch back to the bowler. Perhaps some credit to the bowler there as it did look a slightly slower delivery and he may have been bowling for it.
It is unlikely Wright will ever have a chanceless knock of any substance but after a few wafts and scares early on (some sweetly timed shots too) he got his head down set about building a fine innings. Plenty of power and placement and unfazed by a rain break, completed a fine century just before tea (and more rain) by hammering three fours off an Onions over. On the next resumption he set off his own brand fireworks for the very few who stayed to the death.
Martin-Jenkins also showed his ability with the bat with a half century at almost a run a ball, comfortably outscoring Wright in a 100 partnership. He should perhaps have been stumped in his 20s, when he dragged his foot out of the crease to Tredwell (the pick of the MCC attack by a long way in the second innings) but he was fortunate that Foster rather grabbed at the ball in his haste. However, this was pretty much the only chance offered in a typically aggressive innings.
Overall
Before Lewry's injury it was pretty certain that Aga and Beer would be the ones to make way for Goodwin and Mushtaq in the upcoming Hampshire match but the former is probably now in a three way battle with Kirtley and Liddle, who was very impressive bowling off a short run in the nets to Goodwin. It is a tough choice but not an unpleasant one and whichever it is will add another dimension to what already looks to be a good attack in fine form. If the batting can overcome its first innings woes, with Wright and RMJ at 7 and 8 and three bowlers who at least know how to bat a bit, there is enough depth to have confidence against any county bowling attack.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
2008 Season Preview: Sussex
2007 in a nutshell:
Retaining the Championship and a first appearance in the Twenty20 finals day added up to another good season for
2008 prospects:
As of now, the main issue is whether the ECB will accept Mushtaq Ahmed’s registration, though the recent development of the PCB confirming the issue of his NOC, it is hard to see that they have any option but to let him play. Assuming that this is the case, the prospects for
Batting:
The return of Matt Prior strengthens what was already one of the better middle orders in the county scene. More will be expected of Mike Yardy who didn’t really regain form from a broken finger in the season’s opener against the MCC until late in the season and the hopes will be for the usual level of performance from Murray Goodwin and Chris Adams. The main issue is the replacement of the retiring Richard Montgomerie and this seems to be a choice between Carl Hopkinson, who did the opening job in the 2006 season and Hodd, who showed great technique and temperament when replacing Prior at No6.
Bowling:
Aside from Ryan Harris replacing Rana Naved, the bowling attack will be the same as usual for the Championship, albeit another year older. Young left armer Chris Liddle is natural cover for Jason Lewry, for whom this is likely to be the final season, and should also get more outings this season. If Mushtaq proves to be as durable as ever, chances will remain limited for the three young spinners on the staff. James Kirtley will again feature mostly in the shorter formats of the game and is probably behind Liddle when it comes to Championship selection.
Probable side:
Championship
Nash, Hodd, Yardy, Goodwin,
One day and Twenty20
Nash, Wright, Goodwin, Adams, Prior, Hopkinson/Hodd, Martin-Jenkins, Yardy, Harris, Mushtaq, Kirtley.
Key Man:
Mushtaq Ahmed will be key again. In all five seasons at
Rising Star:
Luke Wright will be looking to capitalise on last season’s superb batting performances and surprise call-up into the
Captain and Coach:
No change in the major roles is expected with
In response to comments:
We were really pleased about Hodd's return and I think Surrey have missed out by not giving him much of a run in his time there. I know you have Batty and this year the signing of Afzaal helps solidify the middle order but in 2007 it seemed that once either Butcher or Ramps had gone, there was a certain frailty and someone like him at 6 would have shored things up very nicely. He is in a bit of an odd position as Prior will be first choice with the gloves, even though there is no doubt that AH is the better keeper, and coming up behind is Ben Brown, who he acknowledges as being the best keeper on the staff. Fortunately he has been phlegmatic about it and is happy to try to make the side on batting alone, which is why I think he would be ideal for the opener spot.
It is tricky to know where to put Wright in the order. Obviously his ability suggests that he could fill a position like 4 or 5 in the order and would do in many county sides but then you look at who is already there and at 6 too and it looks like the only place. Had he not been involved with England, he might have made an interesting candidate for opening but I think we would go with someone who is likely to be around all season in our attempt to find a long term partnership.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
England Ratings
Here is how England's players rated in their disappointing 3-1 series defeat to New Zealand:
Alastair Cook 6
For the second consecutive series, Cook finished as England's top run-scorer. He appears to be going in the right direction as a one-day player but an inability to score a steady stream of singles mean doubts still abound. His 70-ball 42 on the final game bordered on the excruciating; while his 69 in game four, scored at a strike-rate of just 78 despite the perfect batting conditions, was also indicative of his limitations.
Phil Mustard 6
Mustard's 83 in the fourth game showed he has real promise as a pinch hitter - but he too often flatters to deceive, and was out to an aberrant slog in the final game. Encouragingly, his keeping was generally excellent - though, typically amongst English keepers, he disappointed with the gloves after making his top score.
Ian Bell 6
Yet again, the feeling is Bell too often fails to assert himself for an international number three. His 73, before being unjustly given out, was sublime, but he must improve his consistency. At least his strike-rate - 80 in this series - has markedly improved in the last year.
Kevin Pietersen 6
Pietersen's average - 33 - and strike-rate - 73 - were both disappointing. In 20 ODIs since the World Cup, he has averaged just 31 - though they were tentative signs of improvement, England need to work out why.
Paul Collingwood 8
In games three and four, Collingwood played two brilliant innings which should banish, once and for all, the misconception that he is a 'nurdler'. His bowling and captaincy were fairly impressive too.
Owais Shah 4
A very disappointing series, which showed Shah is less-than-comfortable attacking from ball one. His talent is beyond question, however, and it would be well worth giving him the chance to open, as he has for Middlesex.
Ravi Bopara 2
Looked out-of-his depth and desperately bereft of confidence. How much he has been over-hyped for one valiant, but ultimately futile, innings a year ago.
Graeme Swann 2
Unceremoniously discarded after two poor games - though it would never be easy defending such meagre totals - and should have played towards the end of the series, given the excellence of his displays in Sri Lanka.
Stuart Broad 7
Undoubtedly on an upward curve, Broad twice took three wickets in an innings but also suffered from bowling too short at times. But, especially given his batting aptitude - 52 runs for once out in this series - he has established himself as a key member of the limited-overs side.
Ryan Sidebottom 7
Now an indispensable member of the side, Sidebottom is the sole bowler with a full grasp of the virtues of line-and-length. That should not detract from his other qualities, however, and his spell with the old-ball in the fifth game was an example of pacey reverse-swing at its best.
James Anderson 2
Enough is enough. Anderson consistently bowls too many loose deliveries, allowing New Zealand's openers to get off to explosive starts - unacceptable in a side playing only three specialist bowlers. His series stats say it all: four wickets at an average of 67 and an egregious economy of 7.3.
Dimitri Mascarenhas 6
There was a major clamour for his inclusion after his superb Twenty20 performances. 29* of 12 balls in the fifth game illustrated why; but, not benefiting from an apparent lack of confidence from his captain, his 14 overs cost 93. If he cannot consistently deliver 10 overs for 50, even his amazing propensity for clearing the ropes may not be enough to claim a regular spot.
Luke Wright 8
Wright's showing was, in many ways, the most encouraging of any England player. He hit the ball hard and far, scoring 71 in the 47 balls he faced, but his clean-striking suggests a highly encouraging talent - for now, however, he should not be brought back up to open, where he failed ignominiously in the Twenty20 World Cup. And his last over in game four suggests a temperament well-suited to international cricket, and real potential as a fifth bowler.
The Verdict
After twice thrashing New Zealand in the Twenty20 games, this was a humbling series indeed for England. Their batting collapsed pathetically in the first two games, while their policy of including only three front-line bowlers is not sustainable. A more flexible batting order is another area England must work on: too often they lack adaptability in games, though Collingwood's use of Shah with the ball showed they can think on their feet. England's one-day side is considerably better off than when they were humbled by the West Indies - but it is very much work in progress.
Alastair Cook 6
For the second consecutive series, Cook finished as England's top run-scorer. He appears to be going in the right direction as a one-day player but an inability to score a steady stream of singles mean doubts still abound. His 70-ball 42 on the final game bordered on the excruciating; while his 69 in game four, scored at a strike-rate of just 78 despite the perfect batting conditions, was also indicative of his limitations.
Phil Mustard 6
Mustard's 83 in the fourth game showed he has real promise as a pinch hitter - but he too often flatters to deceive, and was out to an aberrant slog in the final game. Encouragingly, his keeping was generally excellent - though, typically amongst English keepers, he disappointed with the gloves after making his top score.
Ian Bell 6
Yet again, the feeling is Bell too often fails to assert himself for an international number three. His 73, before being unjustly given out, was sublime, but he must improve his consistency. At least his strike-rate - 80 in this series - has markedly improved in the last year.
Kevin Pietersen 6
Pietersen's average - 33 - and strike-rate - 73 - were both disappointing. In 20 ODIs since the World Cup, he has averaged just 31 - though they were tentative signs of improvement, England need to work out why.
Paul Collingwood 8
In games three and four, Collingwood played two brilliant innings which should banish, once and for all, the misconception that he is a 'nurdler'. His bowling and captaincy were fairly impressive too.
Owais Shah 4
A very disappointing series, which showed Shah is less-than-comfortable attacking from ball one. His talent is beyond question, however, and it would be well worth giving him the chance to open, as he has for Middlesex.
Ravi Bopara 2
Looked out-of-his depth and desperately bereft of confidence. How much he has been over-hyped for one valiant, but ultimately futile, innings a year ago.
Graeme Swann 2
Unceremoniously discarded after two poor games - though it would never be easy defending such meagre totals - and should have played towards the end of the series, given the excellence of his displays in Sri Lanka.
Stuart Broad 7
Undoubtedly on an upward curve, Broad twice took three wickets in an innings but also suffered from bowling too short at times. But, especially given his batting aptitude - 52 runs for once out in this series - he has established himself as a key member of the limited-overs side.
Ryan Sidebottom 7
Now an indispensable member of the side, Sidebottom is the sole bowler with a full grasp of the virtues of line-and-length. That should not detract from his other qualities, however, and his spell with the old-ball in the fifth game was an example of pacey reverse-swing at its best.
James Anderson 2
Enough is enough. Anderson consistently bowls too many loose deliveries, allowing New Zealand's openers to get off to explosive starts - unacceptable in a side playing only three specialist bowlers. His series stats say it all: four wickets at an average of 67 and an egregious economy of 7.3.
Dimitri Mascarenhas 6
There was a major clamour for his inclusion after his superb Twenty20 performances. 29* of 12 balls in the fifth game illustrated why; but, not benefiting from an apparent lack of confidence from his captain, his 14 overs cost 93. If he cannot consistently deliver 10 overs for 50, even his amazing propensity for clearing the ropes may not be enough to claim a regular spot.
Luke Wright 8
Wright's showing was, in many ways, the most encouraging of any England player. He hit the ball hard and far, scoring 71 in the 47 balls he faced, but his clean-striking suggests a highly encouraging talent - for now, however, he should not be brought back up to open, where he failed ignominiously in the Twenty20 World Cup. And his last over in game four suggests a temperament well-suited to international cricket, and real potential as a fifth bowler.
The Verdict
After twice thrashing New Zealand in the Twenty20 games, this was a humbling series indeed for England. Their batting collapsed pathetically in the first two games, while their policy of including only three front-line bowlers is not sustainable. A more flexible batting order is another area England must work on: too often they lack adaptability in games, though Collingwood's use of Shah with the ball showed they can think on their feet. England's one-day side is considerably better off than when they were humbled by the West Indies - but it is very much work in progress.
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Anderson's struggles continue
Away from the sheer madness of the Indian Premier League, there was quite a game of cricket played between England and New Zealand. Most pundits thought 340 was well out of the Kiwis’ reach; but they reckoned without some mediocre bowling, the short boundaries and some exhilarating batting. For all their problems, especially in the Test arena, New Zealand remain a combative and canny one-day international side. With that in mind, England would be ecstatic if they could salvage a draw from this series.
To do that, they will need to build on their batting exploits. At last, England managed an assertive start. Phil Mustard displayed hitting power and hitherto unimagined subtlety and selectivity in his 83, amassing 158 with Alastair Cook. Cook is undeniably growing as a limited-overs player. However, he still has a long way to go to succeed in emulating Matthew Hayden. With hindsight, his excruciating start – two runs from 17 balls, during which he was dropped – may have cost England the match. Tellingly, England scored an astonishing 227 from the 30 non-Powerplay overs, but only managed a relatively meagre 113 during the 20 overs of Powerplays. Cook’s strike-rate of 78 would be good on most wickets; but not so on the short boundaries of Napier. Still, the opening partnership of Mustard and Cook, two contrasting left-handers, is one that should be persevered with.
Unlike on numerous occasions in the past, England capitalised in the last 10 overs, adding over a century. Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen and especially Paul Collingwood appear in fine form after failures in the first two games, while Luke Wright bludgeoned quick runs before showing an ice-cool temperament with a brilliant final over of the game.
More worrying is the oft-unfairly treated Owais Shah. His best innings for England, including his 107 against India and 82 at Dambulla, came when given the chance to play a substantial innings before accelerating at the end. He struggled under the requirement of hitting from ball one, suggesting others should be promoted ahead of him in similar situations but, as a supremely talented player who can accumulate and find the gaps with his wristy style, Shah should not be discarded.
With the ball, however, England’s shortcomings were exposed. Besides the exemplary Ryan Sidebottom, bowlers consistently bowled too short. James Anderson is 25 and has played 85 ODIs, but his control is too often found wanting. Given that he has averaged 56, with an economy rate of 5.6, during his last nine games, Anderson needs to impress in the series finale – or he should be dropped.
But what of Dimi Mascharenhas? After two scintillating performances in the two Twenty20 games, there was a clamour for him to be included in the ODI side too. But he has failed to justify the hype, bowling nine overs for 69, seemingly lacking the confidence of Collingwood, and not being given the chance to show-off his six-hitting power. In the right conditions, both his bowling and batting could be of great use. Yet in the last two games, having dropped Graeme Swann, England have been left with just three front-line bowlers, and have subsequently been over-exposed.
But after the humiliations of the first two games, it is testament to England's resilience that they can still harbour hopes of sharing the series.
Monday, 17 September 2007
England’s misuse of resources
The squad England has assembled for the Twenty20 World Cup has all the elements for success, but has been poorly managed both in terms of selection and match tactics.
The worst example of this has been the batting orders, which have failed to reflect form or common sense. Prior is not a ODI opener, much less a Twenty20 opener. He does not have the ability or the nous to fulfil this role, yet has been a permanent fixture in it. Luke Wright, though he has potential, has failed to find form so far and is cruelly exposed at the top of the order.
What is needed is someone who can hit over the top and improvise to maximise run output while the fielding restrictions are in place. To my mind there is no better hitter in the team than Mascarenhas. With only two fielders allowed out of the circle in the first six overs he has the ability to hit over the top and cause early carnage.
Even if he failed to build on a quick start, he would almost certainly score at such a rate that England would have the foundation to build a big innings or chase down a formidable total.
He could ideally be partnered by Maddy, who keeps the scoreboard ticking over as well as having the ability to hit boundaries. Solanki may have been another option, but he has not played in the tournament so far. It would be foolhardy to throw him into the competition in such a key position with England desperate for victories, though he should merit serious consideration in the middle order.
With Pietersen at three and a middle order of Collingwood, Shah and Solanki, England would be well placed to build on a quick fire start. Prior and Flintoff could add some late blasting, if required, without being under the pressure their current batting spots generate.
There can be little doubt that if England are to progress in the competition they need some ruthless pruning of their underperformers and a radical rethink of their batting order.
The worst example of this has been the batting orders, which have failed to reflect form or common sense. Prior is not a ODI opener, much less a Twenty20 opener. He does not have the ability or the nous to fulfil this role, yet has been a permanent fixture in it. Luke Wright, though he has potential, has failed to find form so far and is cruelly exposed at the top of the order.
What is needed is someone who can hit over the top and improvise to maximise run output while the fielding restrictions are in place. To my mind there is no better hitter in the team than Mascarenhas. With only two fielders allowed out of the circle in the first six overs he has the ability to hit over the top and cause early carnage.
Even if he failed to build on a quick start, he would almost certainly score at such a rate that England would have the foundation to build a big innings or chase down a formidable total.
He could ideally be partnered by Maddy, who keeps the scoreboard ticking over as well as having the ability to hit boundaries. Solanki may have been another option, but he has not played in the tournament so far. It would be foolhardy to throw him into the competition in such a key position with England desperate for victories, though he should merit serious consideration in the middle order.
With Pietersen at three and a middle order of Collingwood, Shah and Solanki, England would be well placed to build on a quick fire start. Prior and Flintoff could add some late blasting, if required, without being under the pressure their current batting spots generate.
There can be little doubt that if England are to progress in the competition they need some ruthless pruning of their underperformers and a radical rethink of their batting order.
Sunday, 16 September 2007
Can England still progress?
It’s a new format, perhaps, but England’s performance at this World Cup is much the same as their efforts in the recent 50-over ones. Above all, they struggled – just as they did in the Caribbean – with maximising the fielding restrictions.
Their policy to use Twenty20 specialists has been much discussed. I was in favour of it, but expressed reservations about the selection of Luke Wright. Wright is a potentially exciting talent but lacks the technique and experience to open against international bowlers, and it was rather perverse to promote him after a pair of failures at number three. Mark Ramprakash, in stunning form, inventive and highly effective in Twenty20, and with technical prowess, should surely have gone; with hindsight so should Ian Bell, although, when the squad was selected, he in no way merited selection. Of course, the man who could have made a real difference, and is a true match for Hayden, Gayle and Gibbs, is Marcus Trescothick.
Either way, England are stuck with Wright, Matt Prior, Vikram Solanki and Darren Maddy. Prior, as he proved yet again today, is not an international opening batsmen; his trademark is run-a-ball 20s which, in Twenty20, is simply not fast enough. By process of elimination as much as anything else, I would advocate opening with Solanki and Maddy. They have enjoyed success in this form of the game over its five seasons, and also possess huge experience. Certainly, however, Kevin Pietersen should be at number three.
With the ball, England have been a little better. Had Paul Collingwood caught Albie Morkel, Chris Schofield would not have been clobbered for three sixes and would have returned excellent figures, so it would be unfair to criticise him. On the positive side, Stuart Broad, James Anderson and Andrew Flintoff were very good against South Africa, only to be let down by some abysmal catching that cost England the game.
So England find themselves in a familiar position in World Cups: they are on the verge of an early exit unless they can get their act together and win consecutive games. Ultimately, England probably lack the big-hitting skills necessary to win the tournament, but they were not helped by the truly inexplicable decision to bat Snape ahead of Mascarenhas. As per usual in shorter cricket, England are tremendously reliant on Kevin Pietersen. But if they are to progress, their opening pair must contribute far more.
How can England progress to the semi-finals? Is this the best side: Maddy, Solanki, Pietersen, Collingwood, Shah, Flintoff, Mascarenhas, Prior, Schofield, Broad, Anderson
Their policy to use Twenty20 specialists has been much discussed. I was in favour of it, but expressed reservations about the selection of Luke Wright. Wright is a potentially exciting talent but lacks the technique and experience to open against international bowlers, and it was rather perverse to promote him after a pair of failures at number three. Mark Ramprakash, in stunning form, inventive and highly effective in Twenty20, and with technical prowess, should surely have gone; with hindsight so should Ian Bell, although, when the squad was selected, he in no way merited selection. Of course, the man who could have made a real difference, and is a true match for Hayden, Gayle and Gibbs, is Marcus Trescothick.
Either way, England are stuck with Wright, Matt Prior, Vikram Solanki and Darren Maddy. Prior, as he proved yet again today, is not an international opening batsmen; his trademark is run-a-ball 20s which, in Twenty20, is simply not fast enough. By process of elimination as much as anything else, I would advocate opening with Solanki and Maddy. They have enjoyed success in this form of the game over its five seasons, and also possess huge experience. Certainly, however, Kevin Pietersen should be at number three.
With the ball, England have been a little better. Had Paul Collingwood caught Albie Morkel, Chris Schofield would not have been clobbered for three sixes and would have returned excellent figures, so it would be unfair to criticise him. On the positive side, Stuart Broad, James Anderson and Andrew Flintoff were very good against South Africa, only to be let down by some abysmal catching that cost England the game.
So England find themselves in a familiar position in World Cups: they are on the verge of an early exit unless they can get their act together and win consecutive games. Ultimately, England probably lack the big-hitting skills necessary to win the tournament, but they were not helped by the truly inexplicable decision to bat Snape ahead of Mascarenhas. As per usual in shorter cricket, England are tremendously reliant on Kevin Pietersen. But if they are to progress, their opening pair must contribute far more.
How can England progress to the semi-finals? Is this the best side: Maddy, Solanki, Pietersen, Collingwood, Shah, Flintoff, Mascarenhas, Prior, Schofield, Broad, Anderson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)