The selection of a 16-man Ashes training squad, alongside an England Lions XI to face Australia, provides many portents for the summer ahead. The complete omission of Michael Vaughan is the clearest indication yet his Test career is at an end.
However, would it not have been worth selecting him for the Lions, just as England have done with Steve Harmison? He has been woefully out of form, certainly, but if Strauss or Cook were to get injured, who would England call upon as an emergency opener? Would Stephen Moore or Joe Denly (both selected for the Lions) really have a chance of making their Test debuts in the Ashes?
Overall, the squads are hard to overly quibble with. Leaving Harmison out the 16-man squad but allowing him a crack at Australia for the Lions is surely a good move. It is intriguing that Ian Bell has been selected as captain for the Lions - but it could be the making of him.
There is, however, a whiff of Worcestershire bias about the Lions side which will take on the Aussies at Worcester. Vikram Solanki has no chance of playing for England again. He should not have been preferred to Vaughan or especially Owais Shah. Shah's face seemingly does not fit. There are doubts over his Test match temperament, of course, but playing him for the Lions would be a low-risk way of assessing his qualities. He is considerably more likely to play for England again that Solanki, so Solanki's selection just seems like a waste of a spot. Steven Davies's selection ahead of Messrs Foster and Ambrose is slightly surprising, but he is averaging 43 in Division One this season and actually played for England as recently as March.
The spin issue remains as confusing as ever. Before the squads were announced, many felt England would allow Panesar, who the Aussies have seen before, to play for the Lions, while keeping new leg-spinner Rashid 'hidden' for England against Warwickshire. Instead, they have gone down the opposite path. Panesar is hopelessly out of form and should not play in the first Test. If Rashid does well for the Lions, perhaps he will get his first Test cap in the first game of the 2009 Ashes.
Showing posts with label Monty Panesar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monty Panesar. Show all posts
Monday, 22 June 2009
Friday, 19 June 2009
What's happened to the magic of Monty?
Monty Panesar has earned cult-status in England - not just for his slapstick batting and fielding, but also because some shrewd judges considered him the finest spinner England have produced since the halycon days of Derek Underwood. But something has gone seriously awry. England cannot select him for the Ashes this summer.
After being dropped in the West Indies, and showing some improved variation when he was selected as second spinner for the final Test on tour, it was hoped Panesar would gain confidence getting wickets for Northants and would have fully regained his confidence by the time he was selected for Cardiff, a wicket that notoriously takes spin. In fact, the opposite has happened - to the extent to which it is probably only his England career (he still possesses a central contract) - that is forcing Northants to select him. The statistics are atrocious, and say it all. From 193 overs in the championship, he has taken six wickets for 520 runs at a cost of 86 apiece. With a white ball in his hand, he has taken two wickets for a total cost of 287.
Where has it all gone wrong? The enderaing, childish enthusiasm seems to have given way to uncertainty and a lack of confidence. Panesar does not seem to feel he belongs. Too often he gives the impression of a little boy lost, unable to think for himself, on his feet. How often has anesar actively suggested a fielding change, rather than passively be governed by his captain? Unintentionally, the man who has displaced him as England's number one spinner provided the most damning assessment, saying "I sometimes wonder how he’s got to this stage without wandering in front of a train or a bus". At 27, Panesar is perhaps suffering from a lack of perspective; in this regard, Grame Swann can almost be considered his anthithesis. How easy it is to say from the outside, of course, but a man whose life has been so governed by cricket may find it particularly hard to react when form falls apart.
England's thinktank, impressed by some admirable performances in the World Twenty20, must recognise Adil Rashid is a better choice as second spinner, if England indeed employ two for the first Test. Rashid would give England an extraordinarily long-tail, with Swann's ebullient hitting perhaps forced down as low as number ten.
After being dropped in the West Indies, and showing some improved variation when he was selected as second spinner for the final Test on tour, it was hoped Panesar would gain confidence getting wickets for Northants and would have fully regained his confidence by the time he was selected for Cardiff, a wicket that notoriously takes spin. In fact, the opposite has happened - to the extent to which it is probably only his England career (he still possesses a central contract) - that is forcing Northants to select him. The statistics are atrocious, and say it all. From 193 overs in the championship, he has taken six wickets for 520 runs at a cost of 86 apiece. With a white ball in his hand, he has taken two wickets for a total cost of 287.
Where has it all gone wrong? The enderaing, childish enthusiasm seems to have given way to uncertainty and a lack of confidence. Panesar does not seem to feel he belongs. Too often he gives the impression of a little boy lost, unable to think for himself, on his feet. How often has anesar actively suggested a fielding change, rather than passively be governed by his captain? Unintentionally, the man who has displaced him as England's number one spinner provided the most damning assessment, saying "I sometimes wonder how he’s got to this stage without wandering in front of a train or a bus". At 27, Panesar is perhaps suffering from a lack of perspective; in this regard, Grame Swann can almost be considered his anthithesis. How easy it is to say from the outside, of course, but a man whose life has been so governed by cricket may find it particularly hard to react when form falls apart.
England's thinktank, impressed by some admirable performances in the World Twenty20, must recognise Adil Rashid is a better choice as second spinner, if England indeed employ two for the first Test. Rashid would give England an extraordinarily long-tail, with Swann's ebullient hitting perhaps forced down as low as number ten.
Monday, 25 May 2009
England's Ashes ladder (3)
The third installment of the Ashes ladder - and after the demolition of the West Indies England are imbued with a new-found confidence. So who's up and who's down from after the West Indies tour?
1) Andrew Strauss (-)
Rapidly making this ‘his side’, Strauss will have a point to prove after being overlooked for the captaincy and his subsequent struggles in 2006-07.
2) Alastair Cook (-)
Has finally ended his century drought and will be given the opportunity to improve on his poor previous series against the Aussies.
3) Kevin Pietersen (-)
There are justifiable concerns over his recent form and the state of his mind – witness him describing the thrashings his Bangalore side suffered as “fantastic” – but there should be nothing like an Ashes campaign to get him back to his best if he recovers from injury on time.
4) James Anderson (-)
Amazingly, he was left out of the side as recently as the first Test in the West Indies. But he is now England’s premier quick bowler, bowling with skill with new and old ball alike. His ability to move the ball both ways has some hoping he can emulate Simon Jones in 2005 in exposing Australian frailties against swing.
5) Stuart Broad (-)
Andrew Strauss says he now views Broad as an allrounder, and, even though he has too seldom run through Test sides to date, he can expect to open the bowling alongside Anderson. His working-over of Sarwan at Chester-le-Street spoke of a bowler coming of age at Test level.
6) Graeme Swann (+3)
Swann has been England’s great success story of the past six months, in particular against left-handers – crucial given that Australia may have as many as five in their top eight. Swann’s control has impressed, but he is clearly a more attacking option than Panesar too. Add in the ebullient batting and excellent slip-catching and England may just have uncovered quite a package.
7) Matt Prior (+1)
Doubts over his keeping linger – will they ever go? – but England’s desire to play five bowlers mean Prior’s position is assured. There is simply no other keeper who could come close to convincing at No.6, even if he currently averages less than 30 against non-West Indian opposition.
8 ) Andrew Flintoff (-1)
Since his return last summer, he has averaged just 24 with the bat, surely precluding him from batting at six. With the ball he has been parsimonious and wholehearted, though he has only claimed three wickets a Test. But England will want him batting at seven to allow them a five-man attack.
9) Ravi Bopara (+5)
Three centuries in three innings have ended the debate surrounding England’s No.3 – for now. Test runs, save against Bangladesh, do not come any easier than against the West Indies at home in May, but Bopara has seized his chance admirably. Expect Mitchell Johnson to test out the theory that he is vulnerable to the short ball.
10) Paul Collingwood (-4)
Since being “an absolute goner” against South Africa last summer, Collingwood has been in magnificent form, scoring four hundreds and a 96.
11) Monty Panesar (+1)
The one area in which England can confidently say they have the edge over Australia is in the spin department. The two Andys have spoken of liking the balance two spinners provided the attack in Trinidad, and there seems every chance England will employ two in Cardiff and the two London venues. Panesar has not improved his game sufficiently since his extraordinary Ashes debut, and his struggles for Northants are deeply worrying. But his home record – 80 wickets at 27 – is excellent.
12) Graeme Onions (N/E)
Responded to being left out of the Durham side last season by taking five for 38 on Test debut. With genuine pace and the ability to move the ball off the seam, Onions has some exciting attributes – but a series economy rate of 4.40 suggests he has issues with control.
13) Ryan Sidebottom (+2)
His call-up to the squad for the second Test, along with his inclusion in both England’s limited-overs squads, shows he remains in the selectors’ thoughts. His case could be aided by a feeling that Phillip Hughes may just have a weakness to left-armers bowling over the wicket.
14) Ian Bell (+7)
Seemingly now the first reserve after an impressive start to the domestic season, Bell would certainly have a point to prove if given a chance. If Flintoff were to get injured once more, England may use Bell at six, rather than risk batting Broad at seven.
15) Tim Bresnan (N/E)
His selection for the first two Tests and in the ODI squad shows he is highly regarded. However, would his bowling really threaten Australia in mid-summer?
16) Steve Harmison (-6)
After his hokey-cokey winter and an inauspicious start to the summer, few would be surprised if Harmison never played for England again. But if he can find fitness and form for Durham, there will be a temptation to give him one last chance.
17) Michael Vaughan (-6)
If only he batted as well as he talked. But, for all the doubts, is probably England’s third-choice opener.
18) Adil Rashid (-2)
Took wickets and scored 72 for the Lions against the West Indies. It does not bode well for him that England preferred Gareth Batty for the ODIs in the Caribbean, but, if Panesar continues to struggle, there will be a case for giving Rashid and his improving leg-spin a Test this summer.
19) Tim Ambrose (-2)
Very impressive in his one winter Test as a stand-in for Prior, Ambrose, barring a brilliant performance from James Foster in the World Twenty20, appears established as England’s No.2 keeper. But, as we learned last summer, he is not a Test match No.6.
20) Owais Shah (-7)
Intensity, cramp and a penchant for suicidal runs saw Shah endure a miserable three Tests in the West Indies. It looks unlikely he will play a Test again.
21) Sajid Mahmood (-2)
Has not played a Test since disappearing around Australia in 2006-07, but his pace and ability to reverse swing mean he has not disappeared completely off the radar.
22) Eoin Morgan (N/E)
His raw, uninhibited talent has been likened by many to that of his county college Phillip Hughes. If Morgan impresses for England in the limited-overs games prior to the Ashes, he may have a chance of featuring.
23) Rob Key (-1)
The England Lions skipper will view the World Twenty20 as a chance to further his ambitions for a Test recall, though he has not scored the volume of runs to merit one.
24) Matthew Hoggard (+1)
So many feel he was jettisoned unfairly (even if he averaged 40 from his last 13 Tests) and he will be dreaming of a Test on his home ground. But the selectors seem to feel he has lost his “nip” for good.
25) Mark Ramprakash (N/E)
The romantics’ choice. Averages 42 against Australia and still the most prized wicket in county cricket even in his 40th year.
1) Andrew Strauss (-)
Rapidly making this ‘his side’, Strauss will have a point to prove after being overlooked for the captaincy and his subsequent struggles in 2006-07.
2) Alastair Cook (-)
Has finally ended his century drought and will be given the opportunity to improve on his poor previous series against the Aussies.
3) Kevin Pietersen (-)
There are justifiable concerns over his recent form and the state of his mind – witness him describing the thrashings his Bangalore side suffered as “fantastic” – but there should be nothing like an Ashes campaign to get him back to his best if he recovers from injury on time.
4) James Anderson (-)
Amazingly, he was left out of the side as recently as the first Test in the West Indies. But he is now England’s premier quick bowler, bowling with skill with new and old ball alike. His ability to move the ball both ways has some hoping he can emulate Simon Jones in 2005 in exposing Australian frailties against swing.
5) Stuart Broad (-)
Andrew Strauss says he now views Broad as an allrounder, and, even though he has too seldom run through Test sides to date, he can expect to open the bowling alongside Anderson. His working-over of Sarwan at Chester-le-Street spoke of a bowler coming of age at Test level.
6) Graeme Swann (+3)
Swann has been England’s great success story of the past six months, in particular against left-handers – crucial given that Australia may have as many as five in their top eight. Swann’s control has impressed, but he is clearly a more attacking option than Panesar too. Add in the ebullient batting and excellent slip-catching and England may just have uncovered quite a package.
7) Matt Prior (+1)
Doubts over his keeping linger – will they ever go? – but England’s desire to play five bowlers mean Prior’s position is assured. There is simply no other keeper who could come close to convincing at No.6, even if he currently averages less than 30 against non-West Indian opposition.
8 ) Andrew Flintoff (-1)
Since his return last summer, he has averaged just 24 with the bat, surely precluding him from batting at six. With the ball he has been parsimonious and wholehearted, though he has only claimed three wickets a Test. But England will want him batting at seven to allow them a five-man attack.
9) Ravi Bopara (+5)
Three centuries in three innings have ended the debate surrounding England’s No.3 – for now. Test runs, save against Bangladesh, do not come any easier than against the West Indies at home in May, but Bopara has seized his chance admirably. Expect Mitchell Johnson to test out the theory that he is vulnerable to the short ball.
10) Paul Collingwood (-4)
Since being “an absolute goner” against South Africa last summer, Collingwood has been in magnificent form, scoring four hundreds and a 96.
11) Monty Panesar (+1)
The one area in which England can confidently say they have the edge over Australia is in the spin department. The two Andys have spoken of liking the balance two spinners provided the attack in Trinidad, and there seems every chance England will employ two in Cardiff and the two London venues. Panesar has not improved his game sufficiently since his extraordinary Ashes debut, and his struggles for Northants are deeply worrying. But his home record – 80 wickets at 27 – is excellent.
12) Graeme Onions (N/E)
Responded to being left out of the Durham side last season by taking five for 38 on Test debut. With genuine pace and the ability to move the ball off the seam, Onions has some exciting attributes – but a series economy rate of 4.40 suggests he has issues with control.
13) Ryan Sidebottom (+2)
His call-up to the squad for the second Test, along with his inclusion in both England’s limited-overs squads, shows he remains in the selectors’ thoughts. His case could be aided by a feeling that Phillip Hughes may just have a weakness to left-armers bowling over the wicket.
14) Ian Bell (+7)
Seemingly now the first reserve after an impressive start to the domestic season, Bell would certainly have a point to prove if given a chance. If Flintoff were to get injured once more, England may use Bell at six, rather than risk batting Broad at seven.
15) Tim Bresnan (N/E)
His selection for the first two Tests and in the ODI squad shows he is highly regarded. However, would his bowling really threaten Australia in mid-summer?
16) Steve Harmison (-6)
After his hokey-cokey winter and an inauspicious start to the summer, few would be surprised if Harmison never played for England again. But if he can find fitness and form for Durham, there will be a temptation to give him one last chance.
17) Michael Vaughan (-6)
If only he batted as well as he talked. But, for all the doubts, is probably England’s third-choice opener.
18) Adil Rashid (-2)
Took wickets and scored 72 for the Lions against the West Indies. It does not bode well for him that England preferred Gareth Batty for the ODIs in the Caribbean, but, if Panesar continues to struggle, there will be a case for giving Rashid and his improving leg-spin a Test this summer.
19) Tim Ambrose (-2)
Very impressive in his one winter Test as a stand-in for Prior, Ambrose, barring a brilliant performance from James Foster in the World Twenty20, appears established as England’s No.2 keeper. But, as we learned last summer, he is not a Test match No.6.
20) Owais Shah (-7)
Intensity, cramp and a penchant for suicidal runs saw Shah endure a miserable three Tests in the West Indies. It looks unlikely he will play a Test again.
21) Sajid Mahmood (-2)
Has not played a Test since disappearing around Australia in 2006-07, but his pace and ability to reverse swing mean he has not disappeared completely off the radar.
22) Eoin Morgan (N/E)
His raw, uninhibited talent has been likened by many to that of his county college Phillip Hughes. If Morgan impresses for England in the limited-overs games prior to the Ashes, he may have a chance of featuring.
23) Rob Key (-1)
The England Lions skipper will view the World Twenty20 as a chance to further his ambitions for a Test recall, though he has not scored the volume of runs to merit one.
24) Matthew Hoggard (+1)
So many feel he was jettisoned unfairly (even if he averaged 40 from his last 13 Tests) and he will be dreaming of a Test on his home ground. But the selectors seem to feel he has lost his “nip” for good.
25) Mark Ramprakash (N/E)
The romantics’ choice. Averages 42 against Australia and still the most prized wicket in county cricket even in his 40th year.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
England: Ashes ladder
Three months after my previous England Ashes ladder, what's changed? England have lost a Test series they were expected to win, won an ODI series when their tour threatened to go off the rails, and are set to appoint Andy Flower as their new coach. So who's up and who's down from three months ago?
1) Andrew Strauss (-)
His position could hardly be more secure.
2) Alastair Cook (+1)
Finally ended his century drought to confirm his status as an automatic selection.
3) Kevin Pietersen (+1)
Has been well below his best of late but, providing his head is in the right place, absolutely will play.
4) James Anderson (+7)
A huge winner from the West Indies tour: advanced from being out of the side to being England's premier quick bowler, bowling with immense skill with new and old ball alike.
5) Stuart Broad (+1)
Continues to demonstrate the skill and, especially, the temperament to relish an Ashes challenge, even if England would ideally like him to be their number eight and fourth seamer.
6) Paul Collingwood (+1)
A fine tour of the West Indies, aided by the struggles of Bell and Shah, has made Collingwood a certain starter.
7) Andrew Flintoff (-5)
A disappointing Test series in the West Indies - and, more importantly, more injury worries. However, if fit, England couldn't leave out their 'talismanic' all-rounder? Or could they?
8) Matt Prior (-3)
Appears unfortunate to slip three places after batting magnificiently in the Test series in the West Indies. However, his keeping continues to be a source of great concern. And, if Flintoff is not in the side and England only select four bowlers, the need to hang onto every chance may supersede the extra runs Prior could bring. Still, would have to do a lot wrong in the next three months.
9) Graeme Swann (-)
Swann was superb in the West Indies, providing a fine example of the classical off-spinners' craft. He fully deserves his chance against Australia, particularly given their dislike for off-spinners.
10) Steve Harmison (-2)
Endured a poor tour of the West Indies - but his replacement Amjad Khan was even more disappointing. If he can start the season well, may yet get another chance against Australia.
11) Michael Vaughan (+5)
His reputation has increased hugely of late other contenders have struggled while he has been in the runs for Yorkshire - albeit in Dubai. All the signs indicate England would like him to bat at three (or why not open?) in the Ashes, providing he can show some semblance of form in the meantime.
12) Monty Panesar (+1)
Displayed some increased variations when recalled for the final Test in the West Indies, Panesar is near-certain to feature in the Ashes. But that may well be as England's second-choice spinner, providing they can recognise that is one area in which they may just enjoy supremacy over Australia.
13) Owais Shah (-1)
Given his long-overdue chance, Shah struggled. But he may yet get another two Tests against the West Indies to show he has the technique and temperament to bat at number three. But would England trust him in an Ashes campaign?
14) Ravi Bopara (+6)
A fine century in his only Test innings of the winter will have only boosted his chances, despite mediocre ODI returns. However, would England really be happy to pick such an inexperienced player to bat at number three - especially one who appears the happiest of hookers?
15) Ryan Sidebottom (-)
Played when patently unfit in the Carribean and it would be of little surprise if he never played international cricket again.
16) Adil Rashid (+1)
Were England not impressed with what they saw in the West Indies? How else to explain his non-selection over Gareth Batty? But if England, as they should, prepare turning tracks for the Aussies then he could feature as a secret weapon.
17) Tim Ambrose (+2)
Scored a fluent 76* in his only innings on tour, while his keeping was of a higher calibre than Prior's. So if England only play four bowlers, he could have a chance of selection, even if few would really fancy his chances of scoring big against Australia given his struggles against South Africa.
18) Mark Davies (N/A)
Could be coming good at just the right time, having had a strong tour with the England Lions in New Zealand. He has been afflicted by injuries throughout his career, but at 28 he should be in the form of his life. And his statistics: 232 wickets at 21 in first-class cricket are mindbogglingly good.
19) Sajid Mahmood (N/A)
Yes, yes. But Mahmood has all the raw attributes to be a destructive wicket-taker at international level. And, given how Harmison and Khan performed in the West Indies, he has an outside chance of featuring.
20) Simon Jones (-6)
Injured again. But if he could only put together a handful of impressive performances, temptation would run high.
21) Ian Bell (-11)
Dropped after the First Test debacle and not seen since. Bell will play again for England but probably not until this summer has passed.
22) Robert Key (-1)
Captain of the England Lions, and perhaps England in the World Twenty20 too, Key is a character who inspires respect. But competition for the number three spot is fierce.
23) Amjad Khan (-5)
Did himself no favours in the West Indies with shoddy fielding and wayward bowling.
24) Kabir Ali (-2)
If the England side was selected on county form from the last two seasons, Ali would be in. As it is, he isn't even deemed good enough for the Lions.
25) Matthew Hoggard (-2)
He's still hoping. But few are joining him.
Bubbling under
Batsmen: Joe Denly, Samit Patel, Eoin Morgan, Mark Ramprakash
Keepers: James Foster, Steven Davies
Bowlers: Darren Pattinson, Liam Plunkett, Chris Tremlett
What are your views on this ladder and the makeup of the England side?
1) Andrew Strauss (-)
His position could hardly be more secure.
2) Alastair Cook (+1)
Finally ended his century drought to confirm his status as an automatic selection.
3) Kevin Pietersen (+1)
Has been well below his best of late but, providing his head is in the right place, absolutely will play.
4) James Anderson (+7)
A huge winner from the West Indies tour: advanced from being out of the side to being England's premier quick bowler, bowling with immense skill with new and old ball alike.
5) Stuart Broad (+1)
Continues to demonstrate the skill and, especially, the temperament to relish an Ashes challenge, even if England would ideally like him to be their number eight and fourth seamer.
6) Paul Collingwood (+1)
A fine tour of the West Indies, aided by the struggles of Bell and Shah, has made Collingwood a certain starter.
7) Andrew Flintoff (-5)
A disappointing Test series in the West Indies - and, more importantly, more injury worries. However, if fit, England couldn't leave out their 'talismanic' all-rounder? Or could they?
8) Matt Prior (-3)
Appears unfortunate to slip three places after batting magnificiently in the Test series in the West Indies. However, his keeping continues to be a source of great concern. And, if Flintoff is not in the side and England only select four bowlers, the need to hang onto every chance may supersede the extra runs Prior could bring. Still, would have to do a lot wrong in the next three months.
9) Graeme Swann (-)
Swann was superb in the West Indies, providing a fine example of the classical off-spinners' craft. He fully deserves his chance against Australia, particularly given their dislike for off-spinners.
10) Steve Harmison (-2)
Endured a poor tour of the West Indies - but his replacement Amjad Khan was even more disappointing. If he can start the season well, may yet get another chance against Australia.
11) Michael Vaughan (+5)
His reputation has increased hugely of late other contenders have struggled while he has been in the runs for Yorkshire - albeit in Dubai. All the signs indicate England would like him to bat at three (or why not open?) in the Ashes, providing he can show some semblance of form in the meantime.
12) Monty Panesar (+1)
Displayed some increased variations when recalled for the final Test in the West Indies, Panesar is near-certain to feature in the Ashes. But that may well be as England's second-choice spinner, providing they can recognise that is one area in which they may just enjoy supremacy over Australia.
13) Owais Shah (-1)
Given his long-overdue chance, Shah struggled. But he may yet get another two Tests against the West Indies to show he has the technique and temperament to bat at number three. But would England trust him in an Ashes campaign?
14) Ravi Bopara (+6)
A fine century in his only Test innings of the winter will have only boosted his chances, despite mediocre ODI returns. However, would England really be happy to pick such an inexperienced player to bat at number three - especially one who appears the happiest of hookers?
15) Ryan Sidebottom (-)
Played when patently unfit in the Carribean and it would be of little surprise if he never played international cricket again.
16) Adil Rashid (+1)
Were England not impressed with what they saw in the West Indies? How else to explain his non-selection over Gareth Batty? But if England, as they should, prepare turning tracks for the Aussies then he could feature as a secret weapon.
17) Tim Ambrose (+2)
Scored a fluent 76* in his only innings on tour, while his keeping was of a higher calibre than Prior's. So if England only play four bowlers, he could have a chance of selection, even if few would really fancy his chances of scoring big against Australia given his struggles against South Africa.
18) Mark Davies (N/A)
Could be coming good at just the right time, having had a strong tour with the England Lions in New Zealand. He has been afflicted by injuries throughout his career, but at 28 he should be in the form of his life. And his statistics: 232 wickets at 21 in first-class cricket are mindbogglingly good.
19) Sajid Mahmood (N/A)
Yes, yes. But Mahmood has all the raw attributes to be a destructive wicket-taker at international level. And, given how Harmison and Khan performed in the West Indies, he has an outside chance of featuring.
20) Simon Jones (-6)
Injured again. But if he could only put together a handful of impressive performances, temptation would run high.
21) Ian Bell (-11)
Dropped after the First Test debacle and not seen since. Bell will play again for England but probably not until this summer has passed.
22) Robert Key (-1)
Captain of the England Lions, and perhaps England in the World Twenty20 too, Key is a character who inspires respect. But competition for the number three spot is fierce.
23) Amjad Khan (-5)
Did himself no favours in the West Indies with shoddy fielding and wayward bowling.
24) Kabir Ali (-2)
If the England side was selected on county form from the last two seasons, Ali would be in. As it is, he isn't even deemed good enough for the Lions.
25) Matthew Hoggard (-2)
He's still hoping. But few are joining him.
Bubbling under
Batsmen: Joe Denly, Samit Patel, Eoin Morgan, Mark Ramprakash
Keepers: James Foster, Steven Davies
Bowlers: Darren Pattinson, Liam Plunkett, Chris Tremlett
What are your views on this ladder and the makeup of the England side?
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Reasons to be Cheerful?
So in the end it all came down to an aberration in the first test match. Despite getting Oh So Close on two occasions and making the running for most of the series, England were unable to force a victory to level the series. However, being the glass half full man that I am, there is plenty to build on from this series, as well as an equal amount that needs to be learnt quickly.
Positives
1. The dropping of Monty Panesar has resulted in him coming back with more variation than he has shown in his test career to date. He still needs to learn that his appealing is costing him wickets, but he could again be the match winner England need, rather than the stock bowler he had become.
2. Graham Swann as the other spinner is also a potential match winner and we could see the start of spin twins playing even in home tests.
3. Stuart Broad has tightened up his economy and found a way to take wickets on the flattest pitches imaginable. I seems inconceivable that he and James Anderson won’t get the new ball for the foreseeable future.
4. Speaking of Anderson, he seems to have come of age as the senior quick bowler. He bowled with no luck whatsoever, but almost forced the final victory. He had a much better series than his statistics suggest.
5. Matt Prior is a test match batsman. Could he also be the answer to our problems at Number 3? It should certainly make sure that Andrew Flintoff goes back to being the number 7 batsman he is clearly more comfortable with.
6. Although tempered by the flat pitches, most of our batsmen did cash in on the runs available. Only one batsman missed out, and more on him later (3 below). In particular, Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood not only scored runs, but did so in a positive fashion that hadn’t been seen for a while.
To be learnt
1. The dropping of Steve Harmison last year hasn’t had a long term effect on his bowling and along with Ryan Sidebottom, whose body is stopping him from bowling with any zip, his days as an international cricketer should be at an end. This leaves a space in the England bowling attack for someone to break into if England don’t go down the two spinner route.
2. England should take note that their best bowling performance was in the last innings when they had adopted a hugely positive approach to getting a win. Their batting put the WIndies on the back foot and they were able to create pressure and momentum which threw the opposition off kilter.
3. Owais Shah is not a test player. It gives me no pleasure to write that, but he looked out of his depth on the most batsman friendly pitches he will ever play on and his fielding is a liability. England (as ever) have an issue with their number 3 batsman. Ian Bell clearly looks more comfortable when he bats down the order, as does Ravi Bopara. This may leave a space for Michael Vaughan, if he rediscovers his form in county cricket or we may have to look for a more radical solution (see 5 above).
4. Matt Prior is not test class as a wicket-keeper. His batting is as good as any wicket-keeper since Alec Stewart. However, he still needs to work on the keeping side of things.
5. If England are going to go into a series so underprepared as to throw the first match, then they need to learn how to win on unresponsive pitches. In fact, England just plain need to learn to win again.
My fervent hope from this series is that it marks a renaissance of West Indian cricket. They clearly have some talented players and with Dwain Bravo to come back into the fold, they should be a more successful team than they are currently.
From an England point of view, from the South African series onwards, there have been a catalogue of missed opportunities. The results have not matched the performances, but it is the results that the team will be judged on. This needs to be addressed and quickly.
Positives
1. The dropping of Monty Panesar has resulted in him coming back with more variation than he has shown in his test career to date. He still needs to learn that his appealing is costing him wickets, but he could again be the match winner England need, rather than the stock bowler he had become.
2. Graham Swann as the other spinner is also a potential match winner and we could see the start of spin twins playing even in home tests.
3. Stuart Broad has tightened up his economy and found a way to take wickets on the flattest pitches imaginable. I seems inconceivable that he and James Anderson won’t get the new ball for the foreseeable future.
4. Speaking of Anderson, he seems to have come of age as the senior quick bowler. He bowled with no luck whatsoever, but almost forced the final victory. He had a much better series than his statistics suggest.
5. Matt Prior is a test match batsman. Could he also be the answer to our problems at Number 3? It should certainly make sure that Andrew Flintoff goes back to being the number 7 batsman he is clearly more comfortable with.
6. Although tempered by the flat pitches, most of our batsmen did cash in on the runs available. Only one batsman missed out, and more on him later (3 below). In particular, Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood not only scored runs, but did so in a positive fashion that hadn’t been seen for a while.
To be learnt
1. The dropping of Steve Harmison last year hasn’t had a long term effect on his bowling and along with Ryan Sidebottom, whose body is stopping him from bowling with any zip, his days as an international cricketer should be at an end. This leaves a space in the England bowling attack for someone to break into if England don’t go down the two spinner route.
2. England should take note that their best bowling performance was in the last innings when they had adopted a hugely positive approach to getting a win. Their batting put the WIndies on the back foot and they were able to create pressure and momentum which threw the opposition off kilter.
3. Owais Shah is not a test player. It gives me no pleasure to write that, but he looked out of his depth on the most batsman friendly pitches he will ever play on and his fielding is a liability. England (as ever) have an issue with their number 3 batsman. Ian Bell clearly looks more comfortable when he bats down the order, as does Ravi Bopara. This may leave a space for Michael Vaughan, if he rediscovers his form in county cricket or we may have to look for a more radical solution (see 5 above).
4. Matt Prior is not test class as a wicket-keeper. His batting is as good as any wicket-keeper since Alec Stewart. However, he still needs to work on the keeping side of things.
5. If England are going to go into a series so underprepared as to throw the first match, then they need to learn how to win on unresponsive pitches. In fact, England just plain need to learn to win again.
My fervent hope from this series is that it marks a renaissance of West Indian cricket. They clearly have some talented players and with Dwain Bravo to come back into the fold, they should be a more successful team than they are currently.
From an England point of view, from the South African series onwards, there have been a catalogue of missed opportunities. The results have not matched the performances, but it is the results that the team will be judged on. This needs to be addressed and quickly.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
What a grand debacle
Of all England's humiliations - and heaven knows, there have been a few over the years - their innings humbling by the West Indies must certainly figure prominently. This is rapidly becoming the ultimate Winter of Discontent. England have still not won an international fixture since they jetted off for the Stanford Series.
Australia may have slipped sharply of late, but England are increasingly the laughing stocks of world cricket; this was, of course, their first Test since they managed to rid themselves of a captain and coach simultaneously.
Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower said all the right things about increased player responsbility for match preparation, but yet again deeds failed to match words. There are few things more dispiriting in sport than the England batting collapse; here, England produced another timeless classic. It was at once unbelievable and inevitable, just as when they were bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka 14 months ago. Considering the differences in the opposition, and the fact they finished 30 runs adrift of even that paltry total, this was in a different level alltogether. A collective failure of spirit? Or, perhaps more worryingly, of skill?
England have won only two away Tests in three years - both against a depleted New Zealand side (and even then after being thrashed in the opening Test, scene of another collapso special). A year ago, the bowlers took the blame for a batting collapse, as Harmison and Hoggard were ditched. Whilst it is clear that the bowling of Monty Panesar has become as cliched as Shane Warne's line about him having played the same Test 30-odd times, and his spark has vanished, the seamers essentially performed well enough. Graeme Swann must play in the next Test but the bigger faults, as for so long, lie in the batting departement.
Those projected mainstays of the England batting line-up for the next half-dozen years, Alastair Cook and Ian Bell, have regressed horribly in the last twelve months. Cook is a particularly problematic case; he is barely 24 and has already scored centuries in Australia, India and Sri Lanka, yet appears fatigued and incapable of capitalising when he gets in. But England have no other options in the Caribbean. Bell's is a different case, however. He has played 46 Test matches - and is he any better now than before number one? If Warne's line on Panesar is increasingly becoming the definitive word on the left-arm spinner, so Stuart Law's words on Bell - "that timid little creature" - ring true too. Time for England to send Bell back to county cricket, a season of which could yet toughen him up. Owais Shah, outstanding for England in recent ODIs, should have been handed a run in the side away to Sri Lanka - but now is better than never.
Excuses will be made in the shape of the dressing-room politics at the turn of the year. Yet the reality is England had this coming to them, just as they did in Hamilton 11 months ago. A few changes will help, and England must establish they are prepared to be ruthless with batsmen as well as bowlers. Strauss will need all his captaincy skills to get England out of this one.
Australia may have slipped sharply of late, but England are increasingly the laughing stocks of world cricket; this was, of course, their first Test since they managed to rid themselves of a captain and coach simultaneously.
Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower said all the right things about increased player responsbility for match preparation, but yet again deeds failed to match words. There are few things more dispiriting in sport than the England batting collapse; here, England produced another timeless classic. It was at once unbelievable and inevitable, just as when they were bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka 14 months ago. Considering the differences in the opposition, and the fact they finished 30 runs adrift of even that paltry total, this was in a different level alltogether. A collective failure of spirit? Or, perhaps more worryingly, of skill?
England have won only two away Tests in three years - both against a depleted New Zealand side (and even then after being thrashed in the opening Test, scene of another collapso special). A year ago, the bowlers took the blame for a batting collapse, as Harmison and Hoggard were ditched. Whilst it is clear that the bowling of Monty Panesar has become as cliched as Shane Warne's line about him having played the same Test 30-odd times, and his spark has vanished, the seamers essentially performed well enough. Graeme Swann must play in the next Test but the bigger faults, as for so long, lie in the batting departement.
Those projected mainstays of the England batting line-up for the next half-dozen years, Alastair Cook and Ian Bell, have regressed horribly in the last twelve months. Cook is a particularly problematic case; he is barely 24 and has already scored centuries in Australia, India and Sri Lanka, yet appears fatigued and incapable of capitalising when he gets in. But England have no other options in the Caribbean. Bell's is a different case, however. He has played 46 Test matches - and is he any better now than before number one? If Warne's line on Panesar is increasingly becoming the definitive word on the left-arm spinner, so Stuart Law's words on Bell - "that timid little creature" - ring true too. Time for England to send Bell back to county cricket, a season of which could yet toughen him up. Owais Shah, outstanding for England in recent ODIs, should have been handed a run in the side away to Sri Lanka - but now is better than never.
Excuses will be made in the shape of the dressing-room politics at the turn of the year. Yet the reality is England had this coming to them, just as they did in Hamilton 11 months ago. A few changes will help, and England must establish they are prepared to be ruthless with batsmen as well as bowlers. Strauss will need all his captaincy skills to get England out of this one.
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
England series ratings
Here are the series ratings for England's 1-0 defeat in India - although the ludicrous brevity of the series makes such an exercise somewhat tricky.
Alastair Cook 5
Two fluent half centuries - but he didn't pass 52 in four completed innings. His conversion rate, so impressive at the start of his career, is becoming progressively more worrying.
Andrew Strauss 9
So criticised by this blogger, Strauss produced what should have been a career-defining performance in the first Test, but was badly let down by his team-mates. Strokeless he may seem at times, but while he is so tight in defence and so adept and nudging the ball into spaces, his place is assured.
Ian Bell 2
When is enough enough? Infuriating to his core, Bell has the technique and range of shots to score 8000 runs at 50. But, now, the best thing would be to drop him - from both formats. If he is hungry enough he will return, like Steve Waugh, more battle-hardened.
Kevin Pietersen 7
Captaining was difficult, and he has received criticism for the in-out fields used in the first Test, enabling the spinners to be milked with minimal risk-taking involved. But he will be a better captain for the expereince, while his 144 was majestic.
Paul Collingwood 6.5
Another century evoked the 'gritty Northerner' cliches once more. Some doubts linger, but his willpower is unquestionable. But what, exactly, has happened to his bowling?
Andrew Flintoff 8
Yet again, Flintoff bowled better than the figures suggest, suffering through dropped catches and dodgy lbw decisions. But, at long last, he managed a Test half-century - and a cultured one at that.
Matt Prior 7
Quietly very effective - which is seldom something that can be said of Prior. His keeping looks to have improved since his horror series in Sri Lanka a year ago, while he remains a very good Test number seven.
Stuart Broad 5
Did a sound job in very difficult circumstances. Despite the mediocrity of his record, is now an automatic selection.
Graeme Swann 7
Easily out-bowled Panesar to finish as England's leading wicket-taker. Displayed much more attacking intent and ability to think on his feet (and for himself) - and deserved a lower average, but for some ill-fortune. Shame about the batting though.
James Anderson 4
Bowled skillfully at times in the second Test, whilst claiming scant reward. But overall his was a miserable tour.
Steve Harmison 4
Harmison disappointed in the first Test, save for one fine spell, but deserves to play in the West Indies.
Monty Panesar 4
A miserable series, showing a complete lack of improvement since making his Test debut in India three yeras ago. Infact, his record on the sub-Continent and against sides other than New Zealand and West Indies is distinctly mediocre. It would be a brave man who bets on Panesar playing the first Test in the Caribbean.
The Verdict
Fundamentally, England were beaten by a superior side. But they can take heart from faring a little better than Australia. Ultimately, a two-Test series can simply never satisfy.
Alastair Cook 5
Two fluent half centuries - but he didn't pass 52 in four completed innings. His conversion rate, so impressive at the start of his career, is becoming progressively more worrying.
Andrew Strauss 9
So criticised by this blogger, Strauss produced what should have been a career-defining performance in the first Test, but was badly let down by his team-mates. Strokeless he may seem at times, but while he is so tight in defence and so adept and nudging the ball into spaces, his place is assured.
Ian Bell 2
When is enough enough? Infuriating to his core, Bell has the technique and range of shots to score 8000 runs at 50. But, now, the best thing would be to drop him - from both formats. If he is hungry enough he will return, like Steve Waugh, more battle-hardened.
Kevin Pietersen 7
Captaining was difficult, and he has received criticism for the in-out fields used in the first Test, enabling the spinners to be milked with minimal risk-taking involved. But he will be a better captain for the expereince, while his 144 was majestic.
Paul Collingwood 6.5
Another century evoked the 'gritty Northerner' cliches once more. Some doubts linger, but his willpower is unquestionable. But what, exactly, has happened to his bowling?
Andrew Flintoff 8
Yet again, Flintoff bowled better than the figures suggest, suffering through dropped catches and dodgy lbw decisions. But, at long last, he managed a Test half-century - and a cultured one at that.
Matt Prior 7
Quietly very effective - which is seldom something that can be said of Prior. His keeping looks to have improved since his horror series in Sri Lanka a year ago, while he remains a very good Test number seven.
Stuart Broad 5
Did a sound job in very difficult circumstances. Despite the mediocrity of his record, is now an automatic selection.
Graeme Swann 7
Easily out-bowled Panesar to finish as England's leading wicket-taker. Displayed much more attacking intent and ability to think on his feet (and for himself) - and deserved a lower average, but for some ill-fortune. Shame about the batting though.
James Anderson 4
Bowled skillfully at times in the second Test, whilst claiming scant reward. But overall his was a miserable tour.
Steve Harmison 4
Harmison disappointed in the first Test, save for one fine spell, but deserves to play in the West Indies.
Monty Panesar 4
A miserable series, showing a complete lack of improvement since making his Test debut in India three yeras ago. Infact, his record on the sub-Continent and against sides other than New Zealand and West Indies is distinctly mediocre. It would be a brave man who bets on Panesar playing the first Test in the Caribbean.
The Verdict
Fundamentally, England were beaten by a superior side. But they can take heart from faring a little better than Australia. Ultimately, a two-Test series can simply never satisfy.
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
What Did We Learn From That Then?
I’ll leave others to do their marks out of ten, but there are other issues that the Test part of the tour have thrown up.
1. Two tests is too short for a tour. Both teams were settling into what could have been a highly competitive series. The first test had one of the finest run chases in history (although not the finest of the last month, bizarrely). The second had a tightly fought draw, which could have been much more interesting had India wanted to make it so.
2. England’s persistence with players is paying off. Strauss and Collingwood both paid back the faith that the selectors had in them during the first test. Both have been teetering on the edge of losing their places, but with three very gritty innings, they got England into a winning position in the First Test. Ian Bell should take comfort from this, although it is only 5 tests since his 199 against the team that is now widely believed to be the best in the world.
3. Alistair Cook needs a long chat with his mentor Graham Gooch. His fifty and out habit is becoming both embarrassing and a problem for the team. I suspect it may be linked to the want to turn him into a One-Day player, or that Andrew Strauss is not the quickest of scorers at the other end. He needs to learn to be patient and build the big innings that England need of him.
4. Kevin Pietersen needs to think more as the captain. His spat with Yuvraj, entertaining as it may have been, nearly cost him his wicket at the start of an excellent hundred. Targeting a player is a well worn tactic, but given Yuvraj’s performances, it is likely that it only spurred him on.
5. England’s bowlers need to learn from history. Or at least have talked to those who have done well on the sub-continent. All out pace isn’t the answer and Flintoff apart, they didn’t pose a threat in those conditions.
6. Matt Prior will be England’s wicket-keeper for the Ashes series. Tidy enough behind the stumps despite the testing conditions and a good 50 in the first test. He looked at least a match for Dhoni in the two matches if not better
7. Monty Panesar may not be England’s spinner for the Ashes series. He was comprehensively out-bowled by Graeme Swann, who must be considered the number one option when England revert to one spinner. The emergence as Swann as an attacking force should also dampen the cries for Adil Rashid to be rushed into the test team.
8 England need to remember how to win matches. In the last two series against SA and India, they have played the best two teams in the world at the moment and have not managed to capitalise on their periods of dominance. At Lords and Edgbaston, England were in winning positions but couldn’t see it through. Likewise in Chennai. They need to discover a ruthless streak and a Plan B.
Overall, and reverting to Vaughan-speak, England can take a lot of positives out of the test series, while being disappointed in the result. After the pounding in the One-Day series and the uncertainty about the security implications, they probably should have won the decisive first test. India are an excellent side, probably second in the world on current form. England have a lot to work on before the Ashes series, but the nucleus is in place.
1. Two tests is too short for a tour. Both teams were settling into what could have been a highly competitive series. The first test had one of the finest run chases in history (although not the finest of the last month, bizarrely). The second had a tightly fought draw, which could have been much more interesting had India wanted to make it so.
2. England’s persistence with players is paying off. Strauss and Collingwood both paid back the faith that the selectors had in them during the first test. Both have been teetering on the edge of losing their places, but with three very gritty innings, they got England into a winning position in the First Test. Ian Bell should take comfort from this, although it is only 5 tests since his 199 against the team that is now widely believed to be the best in the world.
3. Alistair Cook needs a long chat with his mentor Graham Gooch. His fifty and out habit is becoming both embarrassing and a problem for the team. I suspect it may be linked to the want to turn him into a One-Day player, or that Andrew Strauss is not the quickest of scorers at the other end. He needs to learn to be patient and build the big innings that England need of him.
4. Kevin Pietersen needs to think more as the captain. His spat with Yuvraj, entertaining as it may have been, nearly cost him his wicket at the start of an excellent hundred. Targeting a player is a well worn tactic, but given Yuvraj’s performances, it is likely that it only spurred him on.
5. England’s bowlers need to learn from history. Or at least have talked to those who have done well on the sub-continent. All out pace isn’t the answer and Flintoff apart, they didn’t pose a threat in those conditions.
6. Matt Prior will be England’s wicket-keeper for the Ashes series. Tidy enough behind the stumps despite the testing conditions and a good 50 in the first test. He looked at least a match for Dhoni in the two matches if not better
7. Monty Panesar may not be England’s spinner for the Ashes series. He was comprehensively out-bowled by Graeme Swann, who must be considered the number one option when England revert to one spinner. The emergence as Swann as an attacking force should also dampen the cries for Adil Rashid to be rushed into the test team.
8 England need to remember how to win matches. In the last two series against SA and India, they have played the best two teams in the world at the moment and have not managed to capitalise on their periods of dominance. At Lords and Edgbaston, England were in winning positions but couldn’t see it through. Likewise in Chennai. They need to discover a ruthless streak and a Plan B.
Overall, and reverting to Vaughan-speak, England can take a lot of positives out of the test series, while being disappointed in the result. After the pounding in the One-Day series and the uncertainty about the security implications, they probably should have won the decisive first test. India are an excellent side, probably second in the world on current form. England have a lot to work on before the Ashes series, but the nucleus is in place.
Thursday, 18 December 2008
A Different View on Monty
Monty Panesar has been the subject of countless articles in the last few days. No sentient being who has ever watched an England cricket match could possibly fail to have heard the conclusions that Monty has no variations, his bowling isn't improving (if Shane Warne had royalty rights over his "same Test 34 times" remark, he'd have made another million by now) and that he doesn't take enough interest in his field placings.
Apart from being staggeringly lazy, boring and repetitive journalism, and without in any way trying to suggest that Monty had a good match or has even had that good a year, I'm not sure about these points. And I'm certainly not sure that they should be repeated as gospel truths.
I think Monty's trouble is that he has no idea whether the powers that be want him to be a strike bowler or a stock bowler. Should he be brought on to take wickets, with the risk of a few balls disappearing? Or is he coming on to tie up an end whilst the fast bowlers rotate in strike mode from the other? In my view, he started off as a strike bowler. He was too raw for anyone to expect him to tie down big name batsmen, but they recognised that he spun the ball miles for a finger-spinner. So they threw the ball to him, and told him to see what he could produce - and he produced some sensational spells of bowling that brought him some of the biggest scalps and best players of spin in the game. But then things happened to change his approach.
He was dropped in Australia for Ashley Giles, the very definition of an uninspiring, unthreatening bowler. Monty had spent nearly a year bowling in a way that caused sober analysts of the game (to say nothing of the more exciteable ones) to label him the best finger-spinner in the world. Then he was dropped for England's most important series for a long time for a guy who made a career out of holding up an end, and in some ways he has made himself into a bowler of that type.
One of my abiding memories from watching the car crash of a defeat in Adelaide was the ease with which Giles was milked for four an over on the same pitch that Shane Warne had made look like a minefield. In the same way, Monty was milked by Tendulkar and co on a pitch that actually looked like a minefield. Granted, neither were helped by their inexperienced captains, who set in-out fields rather than forcing the batsmen to take risks by hitting over the top, but the comparison remains relevant. That Test was the last Giles played and if England drop Monty tomorrow, with Swann in situ and Rashid coming through, it may be the last he plays for some time as well.
He has also had to play totally different roles in the team depending on whether he was part of a four-man or five-man attack. Specifically, in a four man attack, he was used to tie up an end so that the pace bowlers could rotate through the innings. In a five man attack, he could be thrown the ball and told to toss it up and see if he could make things happen. In the last year, he has been mostly in the hands of Michael Vaughan, a brilliant, brilliant captain, and one of my personal favourite cricketers - but he was in Vaughan's hands at the worst time, when his captaincy was on the wane. Vaughan used Panesar like Giles, and, again, Monty has responded by trying to make himself into what he perceived was wanted. This says a lot about him as a team man, but I would have preferred him to say "sod you, if you want a bowler like that then get Robert Croft out of retirement - I can actually turn the ball".
I'm not going to make a separate point out of it, because it's well trodden ground, but the same pattern is obvious when you think about Monty and ODIs. In a typical English way, with typical suspicion of unorthodox talent (parallels with Wayne Rooney, anyone?), we have turned an enthusiastic young finger spinner who can turn the ball like a leggie into a typical, dour containing bowler who looks at his economy rate rather than his wickets column to find out how well he has bowled. There aren't many bowlers who can bowl any team in the world out on a good day, and we should celebrate the fact that Monty is one of them rather than complain that he doesn't keep the runs down in the meantime. Hopefully, KP and his attacking instincts will take this approach and take Monty in a different direction.
At the same time as all of this, Monty was forced to focus on his fielding and batting instead of his bowling - again whilst suffering constantly in comparison with Ashley Giles. Hasn't anyone worked out yet that he will always be a terrible fielder and batsman, regardless of how much work he does (and his work ethic is not in question)? Thinking about his bowling, as we should, he didn't come into the team as a hard bitten county pro who had toiled for summer after summer and had learned all that he was going to learn. What he needed was a mentor, one who believed in his talent and who could nurture that talent into full bloom, his Terry Jenner. He still doesn't have that - in fact, England don't even have a spin bowling coach. Why the hell not? How can the cast of thousands that follows the team around not include a spin bowling coach? Is it therefore any wonder that Monty doesn't understand the metagame that should accompany his bowling, and hasn't developed dangerous variations? Where are the stories of him spending hour after hour with pool balls or oranges, seeing what new things he can do with them, or sitting at the feet of the greats of the game, lapping up their insights? Is he supposed to learn his trade by osmosis? If you'll excuse the flood of rhetorical questions, he has been horribly mismanaged by England.
If you want an example of this dysfunctionality, Mushtaq Ahmed was due to be appointed as spin bowling coach - why? Mushy was a great bowler and is an admirable man in many, many ways, but Monty is currently our premier spinner, and he is a finger spinner...so why are we appointing a leggie as his coach? Perhaps David Gower should teach Bell to bat left-handed, and Marcus Trescothick should work on Matt Prior's wicketkeeping. England have a terrible record with young spinners recently - Richard Dawson all but gave up spin bowling after being handled abysmally during a tour of Australia, and Chris Schofield almost gave up cricket after his experiences. Ever since the Gatting ball, we have been searching for so desperately for our own Shane Warne that it has destroyed a number of careers - so god help Adil Rashid.
As one final thought, there is one other spinner in the world who is quiet and a bit eccentric off the field, who seems born to bowl and has help from a quirk in his physique, has had no renowned mentor but has created devastating variations, has always been a rabbit with the bat and a dreamer in the field and who keeps runs down whilst taking hatfuls of wickets. But if we're now criticising Monty for not being Murali, then the world really has gone mad.
Apart from being staggeringly lazy, boring and repetitive journalism, and without in any way trying to suggest that Monty had a good match or has even had that good a year, I'm not sure about these points. And I'm certainly not sure that they should be repeated as gospel truths.
I think Monty's trouble is that he has no idea whether the powers that be want him to be a strike bowler or a stock bowler. Should he be brought on to take wickets, with the risk of a few balls disappearing? Or is he coming on to tie up an end whilst the fast bowlers rotate in strike mode from the other? In my view, he started off as a strike bowler. He was too raw for anyone to expect him to tie down big name batsmen, but they recognised that he spun the ball miles for a finger-spinner. So they threw the ball to him, and told him to see what he could produce - and he produced some sensational spells of bowling that brought him some of the biggest scalps and best players of spin in the game. But then things happened to change his approach.
He was dropped in Australia for Ashley Giles, the very definition of an uninspiring, unthreatening bowler. Monty had spent nearly a year bowling in a way that caused sober analysts of the game (to say nothing of the more exciteable ones) to label him the best finger-spinner in the world. Then he was dropped for England's most important series for a long time for a guy who made a career out of holding up an end, and in some ways he has made himself into a bowler of that type.
One of my abiding memories from watching the car crash of a defeat in Adelaide was the ease with which Giles was milked for four an over on the same pitch that Shane Warne had made look like a minefield. In the same way, Monty was milked by Tendulkar and co on a pitch that actually looked like a minefield. Granted, neither were helped by their inexperienced captains, who set in-out fields rather than forcing the batsmen to take risks by hitting over the top, but the comparison remains relevant. That Test was the last Giles played and if England drop Monty tomorrow, with Swann in situ and Rashid coming through, it may be the last he plays for some time as well.
He has also had to play totally different roles in the team depending on whether he was part of a four-man or five-man attack. Specifically, in a four man attack, he was used to tie up an end so that the pace bowlers could rotate through the innings. In a five man attack, he could be thrown the ball and told to toss it up and see if he could make things happen. In the last year, he has been mostly in the hands of Michael Vaughan, a brilliant, brilliant captain, and one of my personal favourite cricketers - but he was in Vaughan's hands at the worst time, when his captaincy was on the wane. Vaughan used Panesar like Giles, and, again, Monty has responded by trying to make himself into what he perceived was wanted. This says a lot about him as a team man, but I would have preferred him to say "sod you, if you want a bowler like that then get Robert Croft out of retirement - I can actually turn the ball".
I'm not going to make a separate point out of it, because it's well trodden ground, but the same pattern is obvious when you think about Monty and ODIs. In a typical English way, with typical suspicion of unorthodox talent (parallels with Wayne Rooney, anyone?), we have turned an enthusiastic young finger spinner who can turn the ball like a leggie into a typical, dour containing bowler who looks at his economy rate rather than his wickets column to find out how well he has bowled. There aren't many bowlers who can bowl any team in the world out on a good day, and we should celebrate the fact that Monty is one of them rather than complain that he doesn't keep the runs down in the meantime. Hopefully, KP and his attacking instincts will take this approach and take Monty in a different direction.
At the same time as all of this, Monty was forced to focus on his fielding and batting instead of his bowling - again whilst suffering constantly in comparison with Ashley Giles. Hasn't anyone worked out yet that he will always be a terrible fielder and batsman, regardless of how much work he does (and his work ethic is not in question)? Thinking about his bowling, as we should, he didn't come into the team as a hard bitten county pro who had toiled for summer after summer and had learned all that he was going to learn. What he needed was a mentor, one who believed in his talent and who could nurture that talent into full bloom, his Terry Jenner. He still doesn't have that - in fact, England don't even have a spin bowling coach. Why the hell not? How can the cast of thousands that follows the team around not include a spin bowling coach? Is it therefore any wonder that Monty doesn't understand the metagame that should accompany his bowling, and hasn't developed dangerous variations? Where are the stories of him spending hour after hour with pool balls or oranges, seeing what new things he can do with them, or sitting at the feet of the greats of the game, lapping up their insights? Is he supposed to learn his trade by osmosis? If you'll excuse the flood of rhetorical questions, he has been horribly mismanaged by England.
If you want an example of this dysfunctionality, Mushtaq Ahmed was due to be appointed as spin bowling coach - why? Mushy was a great bowler and is an admirable man in many, many ways, but Monty is currently our premier spinner, and he is a finger spinner...so why are we appointing a leggie as his coach? Perhaps David Gower should teach Bell to bat left-handed, and Marcus Trescothick should work on Matt Prior's wicketkeeping. England have a terrible record with young spinners recently - Richard Dawson all but gave up spin bowling after being handled abysmally during a tour of Australia, and Chris Schofield almost gave up cricket after his experiences. Ever since the Gatting ball, we have been searching for so desperately for our own Shane Warne that it has destroyed a number of careers - so god help Adil Rashid.
As one final thought, there is one other spinner in the world who is quiet and a bit eccentric off the field, who seems born to bowl and has help from a quirk in his physique, has had no renowned mentor but has created devastating variations, has always been a rabbit with the bat and a dreamer in the field and who keeps runs down whilst taking hatfuls of wickets. But if we're now criticising Monty for not being Murali, then the world really has gone mad.
Monday, 15 December 2008
Bowling deficiencies undermines magnificent Strauss
England produced a performance of tremendous resilience, but ultimately they simply weren’t good enough. In the final analysis, the twin failures of Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff were vital. But what was even more so was a lack of bowling penetration.
Monty Panesar has been under considerable pressure of late, and fourth innings figures of 0-105 will only reinforce this. Patently, he has failed to develop since his debut in India almost three years ago, as also illustrated by him being dropped from the one-day side. His record remains very respectable, but it has been boosted by relatively easy pickings against West Indies and New Zealand. And in seven Tests in the sub-continent, he averages close to 60, showing an inability to thrive when denied the bouncy pitches he benefits from in England.
If he struggles in the next Test, he will be under considerable pressure for his place, especially if he is out-bowled by Graeme Swann once more. On debut, Swann looked to attack far more than Panesar, and was unfortunate not to claim more than four wickets. If Swann can score runs at number eight in the next Test, Panesar’s deficiencies in this department will also count against him.
Andrew Flintoff was skilful and wholehearted as ever, but unable to extract much reverse-swing in the fourth innings. India were able to play him out, and score rapidly off James Anderson and Steve Harmison. Anderson is woefully short of confidence, and should be dropped for the next game. Amjad Khan, with more ability to generate reverse-swing, would be worth a gamble.
With the bat, Andrew Strauss was magnificent. So often the subject of criticism on this blog, Strauss proved his quality with two masterful centuries. Displaying solid defence and the ability to manoeuvre the ball into gaps, especially off the back foot, Strauss arguably enjoyed the best game of any English batsman since Alec Stewart’s epic pair of hundreds in Bridgetown 14 years ago. Paul Collingwood has looked so out of form for so much of the last twelve months, and yet has now managed two centuries in three games.
The failings of Pietersen and Flintoff were disappointing, displaying rash shot selection and a lack of subtlety. But one would hardly be surprised if Pietersen responded with a century next match. It was, however, odd that he did not so much as bowl an over of Collingwood or Ian Bell’s medium-pace, when the rest of the attack so clearly lacked penetration.
More worrying is Bell. His ‘breakthrough’ innings – 199 against South Africa – now feels an age away, as he has returned to his old penchant for infuriating. England would be wrong to continue to ignore Owais Shah, superb in the ODI series and scorer of 88 and 38 in his only previous Test in India. He must have greeted Collingwood’s century with more than a little frustration. After three-and-a-half-days England were in an excellent position to wrap up what would have been a phenomenal win.
A great deal of credit must be paid to the magisterial, albeit immensely contrasting, innings of Sehwag and Tendulkar. If they are to earn a share of this ludicrously short series, England need their wicket-taking threat to extend beyond merely Flintoff and Swann. The bottom line, alas, is England performed admirably – and it is worth remembering that they got closer to victory than Australia managed a few months ago - but were simply beaten, and beaten well, by a superior side.
Monty Panesar has been under considerable pressure of late, and fourth innings figures of 0-105 will only reinforce this. Patently, he has failed to develop since his debut in India almost three years ago, as also illustrated by him being dropped from the one-day side. His record remains very respectable, but it has been boosted by relatively easy pickings against West Indies and New Zealand. And in seven Tests in the sub-continent, he averages close to 60, showing an inability to thrive when denied the bouncy pitches he benefits from in England.
If he struggles in the next Test, he will be under considerable pressure for his place, especially if he is out-bowled by Graeme Swann once more. On debut, Swann looked to attack far more than Panesar, and was unfortunate not to claim more than four wickets. If Swann can score runs at number eight in the next Test, Panesar’s deficiencies in this department will also count against him.
Andrew Flintoff was skilful and wholehearted as ever, but unable to extract much reverse-swing in the fourth innings. India were able to play him out, and score rapidly off James Anderson and Steve Harmison. Anderson is woefully short of confidence, and should be dropped for the next game. Amjad Khan, with more ability to generate reverse-swing, would be worth a gamble.
With the bat, Andrew Strauss was magnificent. So often the subject of criticism on this blog, Strauss proved his quality with two masterful centuries. Displaying solid defence and the ability to manoeuvre the ball into gaps, especially off the back foot, Strauss arguably enjoyed the best game of any English batsman since Alec Stewart’s epic pair of hundreds in Bridgetown 14 years ago. Paul Collingwood has looked so out of form for so much of the last twelve months, and yet has now managed two centuries in three games.
The failings of Pietersen and Flintoff were disappointing, displaying rash shot selection and a lack of subtlety. But one would hardly be surprised if Pietersen responded with a century next match. It was, however, odd that he did not so much as bowl an over of Collingwood or Ian Bell’s medium-pace, when the rest of the attack so clearly lacked penetration.
More worrying is Bell. His ‘breakthrough’ innings – 199 against South Africa – now feels an age away, as he has returned to his old penchant for infuriating. England would be wrong to continue to ignore Owais Shah, superb in the ODI series and scorer of 88 and 38 in his only previous Test in India. He must have greeted Collingwood’s century with more than a little frustration. After three-and-a-half-days England were in an excellent position to wrap up what would have been a phenomenal win.
A great deal of credit must be paid to the magisterial, albeit immensely contrasting, innings of Sehwag and Tendulkar. If they are to earn a share of this ludicrously short series, England need their wicket-taking threat to extend beyond merely Flintoff and Swann. The bottom line, alas, is England performed admirably – and it is worth remembering that they got closer to victory than Australia managed a few months ago - but were simply beaten, and beaten well, by a superior side.
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
2008 Season Review: Northamptonshire
Continuing our season reviews, here is an assesment of Northants's campaign.
Championship Division Two - 4th
FP Trophy - 3rd, Midlands Division
Twenty20 Cup - Quarter Finalists
Pro40 Division Two - 9th
If it could have gone wrong for Northamptonshire in 2008, it probably did, as a season that began with high hopes ended in typically desultory fashion, as they failed to win a game in any competition over the final 67 days of the season. Rumours of dissension in the dressing room (rumours that allegedly came with a strong Afrikaans accent) didn’t help as Pretoria-upon-Nene endured another barren season.
If no one could understand what they were saying in the dressing room, it was hardly surprising as there were times when I couldn’t understand what they were doing on the pitch or in terms of team selection.
The County didn’t always help themselves on the field (notably with the suicidal decision to bowl first in the final game of the season, as Middlesex closed the day on 291-1, and a succession of top order collapses) but they were set on the back foot by the ECB’s initial decision to block the registration of Andrew Hall and Johannes van der Wath, found themselves dogged by bad weather and saw their best hope of silverware in years disappear with the toss of the coin under the Chelmsford lights.
Northants began the season in typical style by losing their first two Championship games. In Hall and van der Wath’s absence, they were forced to scramble for an overseas player and came up with Johan Louw, a player who we didn’t really need and one we certainly didn’t need when Hall and van der Wath were finally cleared to play. However, we were stuck with him and ultimately the ECB’s desperation to appease their Indian paymasters cost Northants a lot of money that they could ill afford, a move that will have a long-term impact on the club’s budget.
Promotion in the Championship was always liable to be beyond Northants’ reach but they ultimately sustained a promotion challenge until the penultimate game thanks to a 13-game unbeaten streak. The weather compromised a number of promising positions but an inability to take wickets ultimately cost them. However, all things considered it wasn’t a bad effort although it may be hard to improve upon next season in a division containing Kent, Surrey, Middlesex and Essex.
The chance of glory in the Friends Provident was dashed by a combination of bad luck (Hall and van der Wath’s arrival was delayed by red tape – thanks a bunch Giles Clarke – while Northants finished with more points than two of the eight teams that advanced to the quarter finals) and a rotten performance against Leicestershire on a glorious day where four of the County’s top five amassed 12 runs between them.
The Twenty/20 was there to be won. They started brilliantly, winning four games in a row, and then went off the boil in spectacular fashion, limping into the quarter finals and being drawn away against Essex. Whether the conditions that night were suitable for play is a moot point. Essex won the toss and effectively the match. Although the Eagles played much the better cricket on the day, Northamptonshire’s fate was sealed at the toss – a throwback to the bad old days of September cup finals at Lord’s.
The less said about the Pro 40 the better. Northants lost all six games they played (if the weather had not washed out the game with Kent, the Spitfires would doubtless have won and would have qualified for the playoff ahead of Glamorgan) and were frankly abysmal. Riki Wessels and David Sales provided the lone pockets of resistance in a succession of abject performances as the bowlers captured just 31 of a potential 60 wickets and none of the regular top three managed to average 20 with the bat. The whole thing was a fiasco with Northamptonshire invariably giving the impression that as the ECB had decided to scrap the competition after 2009, there was no point taking it seriously.
At times the batting was brilliant. David Sales, Rob White and Lance Klusener all topped 1,000 runs in the Championship – White enjoyed a breakthrough season after years of frustration – while Niall O’Brien, Stephen Peters and latterly Riki Wessles all scored heavily. O’Brien did a great job after stepping into the opener’s role while Wessels was arguably the County’s most exciting player over the second half of the season. He is still only 22 with the ability to make it to the top. It may be a tad ambitious to predict that a player who spent time in the second team this season could yet play for England after his father, Kepler, played for South Africa and Australia but he has enormous talent.
At other times the batting was abysmal. The old Northamptonshire adage of playing crap shots to crap balls and getting out in crap fashion lives on with White and Wessels as guilty as anyone and there were times when the theory that one wicket brings two was replaced by the Northamptonshire mantra of one brings four.
The fielding was hardly brilliant (there is a place in my nightmares for Sales throwing the ball in from the deep midwicket boundary at The Oval, whereupon Jason Brown sidestepped the ball and White and Nicky Boje dived in each other’s way and allowed it to speed on unhindered to the cover boundary) but the bowling was the area where Northants really fell short.
With the exception of van der Wath in the Championship and Hall in the Twenty/20, the bowlers’ performances fluctuated between iffy and abysmal. David Lucas tried his best and had some success while David Wigley also tried hard but their limitations were clear for all to see. Despite that they both earned new two-year deals.
Hall invariably looked overweight but found the stamina to get through four-over spells in the Twenty/20 while van der Wath was lethal at times. Louw was rubbish – at one stage he was omitted in favour of Wigley – and Klusener’s days as a bowler were clearly over, a fact that made his release easier to understand and deal with.
The spinners disappointed. Boje took 33 wickets and was the pick of the bunch but Panesar did little when he was available (18 wickets in seven games, including 7 in the final match of the season) and Jason Brown was hopeless, claiming just 9 Championship scalps at a cost of almost 80 runs each, a damning statistic that led to his release.
The fact that Northamptonshire claimed the second highest tally of batting points in the country and ranked dead last in the bowling points stakes offers clear testimony as to where the flaws lay at Wantage Road in 2008.
There is hope for the future with Sales, White and Wessels developing into a potent middle order and if Wessels kicks on next year he will replace the departed Klusener’s runs. Seam bowling reinforcements are desperately needed and an overseas pace bowler to partner van der Wath is a priority. The County has purged some of the dead wood from the ranks – retaining Wigley was presumably cheaper than buying a new bowling machine for the nets – and with a little luck and a couple of shrewd signings, next year might just be the year...
Player of the season: Still not sure about this one. Sales and Klusener were typically effective while O’Brien had as good a season as he could have done considering he started off the season uncertain of his place in the team. Rob White finally strung together a season’s worth of decent performances and scored 1,000 runs for the first time while Wessels lit up the skies with some superb hitting in the second half of the season and van der Wath and Hall had their moments. On the grounds that O’Brien was the official County Player of the Year and I can’t bring myself to agree with much that they do, I’ll nominate White for the award.
Most disappointing player: A toss up between Johan Louw and Monty Panesar. A desperation signing after the ECB initially blocked Hall and van der Wath’s registration, Louw did nothing to justify his status as an overseas player and proved to be a total waste of money who couldn’t even get in the side every game. Panesar did little more than upset the balance of the team when he played and was a pale shadow of his former self.
Highlight: The announcement that Sales had signed a new four-year contract and would be staying at Wantage Road was probably as good as it got (thereby ensuring we kept our best player and dashed Ashley Giles’ hopes of signing him into the bargain) although the news of Richard Logan’s release was also good news. On the pitch Rob White’s century to set up victory over Warwickshire in the FPT was pretty impressive as was making it four wins in a row to start the Twenty/20 campaign.
Lowlight: How long have you got? Collapsing to 61-9 in the next 20 over game, getting bombed out for 61 at Southend in the Pro 40, losing the toss and the game in the Twenty/20 at Chelmsford and having to bat in the rain under lights (admittedly we made certain of defeat with a fairly arse performance but in all honesty Australia would have struggled), failing to win a game since July 22, coming bottom of the Pro 40 and losing all six games we played....
Get the idea?
http://timwaltonsbandana.blogspot.com/
If you're interested in writing a season review for your county, please email it cricketingworld@hotmail.com
Championship Division Two - 4th
FP Trophy - 3rd, Midlands Division
Twenty20 Cup - Quarter Finalists
Pro40 Division Two - 9th
If it could have gone wrong for Northamptonshire in 2008, it probably did, as a season that began with high hopes ended in typically desultory fashion, as they failed to win a game in any competition over the final 67 days of the season. Rumours of dissension in the dressing room (rumours that allegedly came with a strong Afrikaans accent) didn’t help as Pretoria-upon-Nene endured another barren season.
If no one could understand what they were saying in the dressing room, it was hardly surprising as there were times when I couldn’t understand what they were doing on the pitch or in terms of team selection.
The County didn’t always help themselves on the field (notably with the suicidal decision to bowl first in the final game of the season, as Middlesex closed the day on 291-1, and a succession of top order collapses) but they were set on the back foot by the ECB’s initial decision to block the registration of Andrew Hall and Johannes van der Wath, found themselves dogged by bad weather and saw their best hope of silverware in years disappear with the toss of the coin under the Chelmsford lights.
Northants began the season in typical style by losing their first two Championship games. In Hall and van der Wath’s absence, they were forced to scramble for an overseas player and came up with Johan Louw, a player who we didn’t really need and one we certainly didn’t need when Hall and van der Wath were finally cleared to play. However, we were stuck with him and ultimately the ECB’s desperation to appease their Indian paymasters cost Northants a lot of money that they could ill afford, a move that will have a long-term impact on the club’s budget.
Promotion in the Championship was always liable to be beyond Northants’ reach but they ultimately sustained a promotion challenge until the penultimate game thanks to a 13-game unbeaten streak. The weather compromised a number of promising positions but an inability to take wickets ultimately cost them. However, all things considered it wasn’t a bad effort although it may be hard to improve upon next season in a division containing Kent, Surrey, Middlesex and Essex.
The chance of glory in the Friends Provident was dashed by a combination of bad luck (Hall and van der Wath’s arrival was delayed by red tape – thanks a bunch Giles Clarke – while Northants finished with more points than two of the eight teams that advanced to the quarter finals) and a rotten performance against Leicestershire on a glorious day where four of the County’s top five amassed 12 runs between them.
The Twenty/20 was there to be won. They started brilliantly, winning four games in a row, and then went off the boil in spectacular fashion, limping into the quarter finals and being drawn away against Essex. Whether the conditions that night were suitable for play is a moot point. Essex won the toss and effectively the match. Although the Eagles played much the better cricket on the day, Northamptonshire’s fate was sealed at the toss – a throwback to the bad old days of September cup finals at Lord’s.
The less said about the Pro 40 the better. Northants lost all six games they played (if the weather had not washed out the game with Kent, the Spitfires would doubtless have won and would have qualified for the playoff ahead of Glamorgan) and were frankly abysmal. Riki Wessels and David Sales provided the lone pockets of resistance in a succession of abject performances as the bowlers captured just 31 of a potential 60 wickets and none of the regular top three managed to average 20 with the bat. The whole thing was a fiasco with Northamptonshire invariably giving the impression that as the ECB had decided to scrap the competition after 2009, there was no point taking it seriously.
At times the batting was brilliant. David Sales, Rob White and Lance Klusener all topped 1,000 runs in the Championship – White enjoyed a breakthrough season after years of frustration – while Niall O’Brien, Stephen Peters and latterly Riki Wessles all scored heavily. O’Brien did a great job after stepping into the opener’s role while Wessels was arguably the County’s most exciting player over the second half of the season. He is still only 22 with the ability to make it to the top. It may be a tad ambitious to predict that a player who spent time in the second team this season could yet play for England after his father, Kepler, played for South Africa and Australia but he has enormous talent.
At other times the batting was abysmal. The old Northamptonshire adage of playing crap shots to crap balls and getting out in crap fashion lives on with White and Wessels as guilty as anyone and there were times when the theory that one wicket brings two was replaced by the Northamptonshire mantra of one brings four.
The fielding was hardly brilliant (there is a place in my nightmares for Sales throwing the ball in from the deep midwicket boundary at The Oval, whereupon Jason Brown sidestepped the ball and White and Nicky Boje dived in each other’s way and allowed it to speed on unhindered to the cover boundary) but the bowling was the area where Northants really fell short.
With the exception of van der Wath in the Championship and Hall in the Twenty/20, the bowlers’ performances fluctuated between iffy and abysmal. David Lucas tried his best and had some success while David Wigley also tried hard but their limitations were clear for all to see. Despite that they both earned new two-year deals.
Hall invariably looked overweight but found the stamina to get through four-over spells in the Twenty/20 while van der Wath was lethal at times. Louw was rubbish – at one stage he was omitted in favour of Wigley – and Klusener’s days as a bowler were clearly over, a fact that made his release easier to understand and deal with.
The spinners disappointed. Boje took 33 wickets and was the pick of the bunch but Panesar did little when he was available (18 wickets in seven games, including 7 in the final match of the season) and Jason Brown was hopeless, claiming just 9 Championship scalps at a cost of almost 80 runs each, a damning statistic that led to his release.
The fact that Northamptonshire claimed the second highest tally of batting points in the country and ranked dead last in the bowling points stakes offers clear testimony as to where the flaws lay at Wantage Road in 2008.
There is hope for the future with Sales, White and Wessels developing into a potent middle order and if Wessels kicks on next year he will replace the departed Klusener’s runs. Seam bowling reinforcements are desperately needed and an overseas pace bowler to partner van der Wath is a priority. The County has purged some of the dead wood from the ranks – retaining Wigley was presumably cheaper than buying a new bowling machine for the nets – and with a little luck and a couple of shrewd signings, next year might just be the year...
Player of the season: Still not sure about this one. Sales and Klusener were typically effective while O’Brien had as good a season as he could have done considering he started off the season uncertain of his place in the team. Rob White finally strung together a season’s worth of decent performances and scored 1,000 runs for the first time while Wessels lit up the skies with some superb hitting in the second half of the season and van der Wath and Hall had their moments. On the grounds that O’Brien was the official County Player of the Year and I can’t bring myself to agree with much that they do, I’ll nominate White for the award.
Most disappointing player: A toss up between Johan Louw and Monty Panesar. A desperation signing after the ECB initially blocked Hall and van der Wath’s registration, Louw did nothing to justify his status as an overseas player and proved to be a total waste of money who couldn’t even get in the side every game. Panesar did little more than upset the balance of the team when he played and was a pale shadow of his former self.
Highlight: The announcement that Sales had signed a new four-year contract and would be staying at Wantage Road was probably as good as it got (thereby ensuring we kept our best player and dashed Ashley Giles’ hopes of signing him into the bargain) although the news of Richard Logan’s release was also good news. On the pitch Rob White’s century to set up victory over Warwickshire in the FPT was pretty impressive as was making it four wins in a row to start the Twenty/20 campaign.
Lowlight: How long have you got? Collapsing to 61-9 in the next 20 over game, getting bombed out for 61 at Southend in the Pro 40, losing the toss and the game in the Twenty/20 at Chelmsford and having to bat in the rain under lights (admittedly we made certain of defeat with a fairly arse performance but in all honesty Australia would have struggled), failing to win a game since July 22, coming bottom of the Pro 40 and losing all six games we played....
Get the idea?
http://timwaltonsbandana.blogspot.com/
If you're interested in writing a season review for your county, please email it cricketingworld@hotmail.com
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Give Panesar some slack
There seems to be a consensus currently that Monty Panesar is treading on thin ice. That if he doesn't perform in India he should be dropped. That his record against India is poor and that Swann might do a better job. There is some sense in these views and evidence to back them up. However, I would contend that Panesar is still a top Test spinner, whose best years are certainly yet to come, and that England would be insane to drop him.
I have read numerous articles of late that suggest Panesar had an average summer for England and that his powers are waning. Having watched virtually every delivery of the series against South Africa I would refute this charge very strongly. Panesar, like all the bowlers in the series, was asked to toil on some very batting friendly pitches. This he did, ending up the third highest wicket-taker in the series, with the second best average and and excellent economy rate.
But for some very negative batting by South Africa, dropped catches, missed stumpings and atrocious umpiring Panesar could easily have ended the series with twice the number of wickets and a match-winning haul in the decisive third Test. That he didn't is the nature of cricket, but to accuse him of having an average series is grossly unfair.
It is fact that Panesar's record against India is poor. They have been his toughest opposition in his short Test career - the only team to force his average above 38, raising it to a massive 55. This is a huge hike when compared to his overall Test average of 31.95. However, it is worth remembering that the 6 matches Panesar has played against India included his first ever Test series, in India, and a home series that was dominated by the bat. In that series in England only seamer friendly conditions at Trent Bridge allowed either team to force a result, with India winning it and the series (1-0).
It is fair to say that Panesar has struggled against India, but he is not alone in that. A certain Shane Warne has a record little better against the Indians. Over 14 Tests versus India, Warne managed to take just 43 wickets at an awful average of 47.18, with an economy rate of 3.10 and a strike rate of 91.2. The great leg spinner only managed one 5 wicket haul against India, despite his constant attacking.
The truth is India play spin brilliantly. They are nurtured against slow bowlers, mastering the required technique, even when playing the best, such as Warne and Murali (whose average in India is just 39.58). To expect a finger spinner such as Panesar to do better in India than the likes of Warne and Muralitharan is madness. Yet, it seems that that is what Monty must do if he is to retain his Test place according to many critics.
Surely, it is better to expect Panesar to bowl as well as he can and hope that in doing so he helps England to perform well in what is traditionally their second toughest tour. Without the pressure of unrealistic expectations Monty might just surprise everyone and get the better of India's spin masters.
I have read numerous articles of late that suggest Panesar had an average summer for England and that his powers are waning. Having watched virtually every delivery of the series against South Africa I would refute this charge very strongly. Panesar, like all the bowlers in the series, was asked to toil on some very batting friendly pitches. This he did, ending up the third highest wicket-taker in the series, with the second best average and and excellent economy rate.
But for some very negative batting by South Africa, dropped catches, missed stumpings and atrocious umpiring Panesar could easily have ended the series with twice the number of wickets and a match-winning haul in the decisive third Test. That he didn't is the nature of cricket, but to accuse him of having an average series is grossly unfair.
It is fact that Panesar's record against India is poor. They have been his toughest opposition in his short Test career - the only team to force his average above 38, raising it to a massive 55. This is a huge hike when compared to his overall Test average of 31.95. However, it is worth remembering that the 6 matches Panesar has played against India included his first ever Test series, in India, and a home series that was dominated by the bat. In that series in England only seamer friendly conditions at Trent Bridge allowed either team to force a result, with India winning it and the series (1-0).
It is fair to say that Panesar has struggled against India, but he is not alone in that. A certain Shane Warne has a record little better against the Indians. Over 14 Tests versus India, Warne managed to take just 43 wickets at an awful average of 47.18, with an economy rate of 3.10 and a strike rate of 91.2. The great leg spinner only managed one 5 wicket haul against India, despite his constant attacking.
The truth is India play spin brilliantly. They are nurtured against slow bowlers, mastering the required technique, even when playing the best, such as Warne and Murali (whose average in India is just 39.58). To expect a finger spinner such as Panesar to do better in India than the likes of Warne and Muralitharan is madness. Yet, it seems that that is what Monty must do if he is to retain his Test place according to many critics.
Surely, it is better to expect Panesar to bowl as well as he can and hope that in doing so he helps England to perform well in what is traditionally their second toughest tour. Without the pressure of unrealistic expectations Monty might just surprise everyone and get the better of India's spin masters.
Friday, 29 August 2008
Spin On, Monty
Years ago, whenever A.J. Lamb finally fell foul of the England selectors and was sent back to Northamptonshire for one of his temporary periods of exile, he took out his frustrations on a hapless succession of county attacks, racking up the runs and inspiring the county to greater things.
These days, whenever we get Monty Panesar back from England duty, we get a disinterested spin bowler who barely seems capable of turning one off crazy paving, let alone carving through batting orders. Panesar is at the age (26) where his batting and fielding are clearly not going to get any better - the former is pathetic while the latter is stunningly incompetent and defies belief that any international athlete could be so uncoordinated; he would not look out of place at the Special Olympics.
Panesar is reportedly undecided about committing his future to the county. Whether Northants still need him is a moot point because - apart from his marketing value - what does Panesar offer the team?
Prior to the game with Glamorgan he had taken four wickets in four games - all of which had come in the same innings. He is a one-dimensional cricketer who offers little in limited over games (had we not been forced to select him against Leicestershire in the Friends Provident Trophy as part of a three-pronged spin attack we might have fared better) and is at the stage where he appears to be going backwards. As Shane Warne noted, Panesar has not played 33 test matches - he's played the same match 33 times.
Panesar has reportedly been offered the most lucrative contract for a bowler ever at Wantage Road and it's hard to see what he's done to justify it. When was the last time he won a game for the county?
He might not be in terminal decline but he's hardly developing into a lethal weapon. Adil Rashid is on the rise and Panesar's place in England's plans may soon be in jeopardy - if he fails to secure the second spinner's berth for the one day series in India his limited overs career may essentially be over at the highest level.
Do Northants really need to break the bank for a one-dimensional prima donna who now seems to regard playing for the county as somewhat beneath him? Perhaps it would be in everyone's interests if Monty decamped to Edgbaston where he could learn at the feet of his illustrious predecessor in the England side, the Great Gilo, and be schooled in the arts of left arm spin.
Personally, if Panesar goes, I won't be missing him at all.
These days, whenever we get Monty Panesar back from England duty, we get a disinterested spin bowler who barely seems capable of turning one off crazy paving, let alone carving through batting orders. Panesar is at the age (26) where his batting and fielding are clearly not going to get any better - the former is pathetic while the latter is stunningly incompetent and defies belief that any international athlete could be so uncoordinated; he would not look out of place at the Special Olympics.
Panesar is reportedly undecided about committing his future to the county. Whether Northants still need him is a moot point because - apart from his marketing value - what does Panesar offer the team?
Prior to the game with Glamorgan he had taken four wickets in four games - all of which had come in the same innings. He is a one-dimensional cricketer who offers little in limited over games (had we not been forced to select him against Leicestershire in the Friends Provident Trophy as part of a three-pronged spin attack we might have fared better) and is at the stage where he appears to be going backwards. As Shane Warne noted, Panesar has not played 33 test matches - he's played the same match 33 times.
Panesar has reportedly been offered the most lucrative contract for a bowler ever at Wantage Road and it's hard to see what he's done to justify it. When was the last time he won a game for the county?
He might not be in terminal decline but he's hardly developing into a lethal weapon. Adil Rashid is on the rise and Panesar's place in England's plans may soon be in jeopardy - if he fails to secure the second spinner's berth for the one day series in India his limited overs career may essentially be over at the highest level.
Do Northants really need to break the bank for a one-dimensional prima donna who now seems to regard playing for the county as somewhat beneath him? Perhaps it would be in everyone's interests if Monty decamped to Edgbaston where he could learn at the feet of his illustrious predecessor in the England side, the Great Gilo, and be schooled in the arts of left arm spin.
Personally, if Panesar goes, I won't be missing him at all.
Friday, 30 May 2008
Prior Knowledge
The England ODI side to face New Zealand in one Twenty20 International and five ODI’s is announced later on today. It is rumoured that there is to be a surprise or two. After reviewing the Friends Provident Trophy matches so far this season, I have tried to identify who is deserving of a place in the side.
The first surprise is that Andrew Strauss is being considered for a recall. Whilst Strauss has clearly worked hard to reinvent himself and is deservedly reaping the benefits, there is no doubt that he is not what England need in the ODI arena, especially given the rise of whiz bang cricket and ever higher run rates. Strauss would be best left to focus on Test cricket and constructing solid innings as in the last Test match. He plays best when he isn’t under pressure to score. From this readers could be forgiven for assuming that Alistair Cook would be my pick at the top. Sorry again. Whilst Strauss isn’t going to be taking Cook’s place, somebody else will! Alistair Cook, very much like Strauss, plays best when not under pressure to score. Neither are Marcus Trescothick and playing them in the hope that they one day will be is sheer foolishness. And a Trescothick is exactly what England need up at the top of the order. Cook tried initially, but looked unnatural and kept on getting out attempting to hit over the top. Then he played his way, which brought more runs, but did nothing for the run rate in comparative terms. His first ODI hundred against India at The Rose Bowl was indicative of Cook’s problem. Whilst he did compile a brilliant innings, England could have unleashed the fury much earlier in the match, but Cook was seemingly unable to do so. Indeed, Ian Bell, his partner in crime, was able to do so to a greater extent. Once again England fell short of the mammoth score which they should have made. Of course, it wasn’t a problem in that particular game, but it could well be in the future.
England have also tried to replace Trescothick, most recently with Phil Mustard, who has also taken over the wicket keeping duties, with limited success. Mustard came to prominence during Durham’s run to the Friends Provident Final last season, which ultimately culminated in them winning their first trophy. His exciting brand of cricket was compared to Adam Gilchrist, always the bench mark for a wicket keeper it seems, no matter how unfair. At international level though, and I say this after his limited appearances, he doesn’t appear to be able to convert starts in to the bigger fifties and hundreds which win matches and are the backbone of any limited overs side. His form in domestic cricket this year has also been far from impressive, as those of us with him in our fantasy sides can testify! Jeremy Coney, after his first sighting of Mustard, described him as a leg side bully. It is hard to disagree at times, although he clearly has more to his game than this. Ultimately though, after ten matches, he is averaging 23.30, with only a solitary fifty to his name.
The change which I therefore wish to see and which looks increasingly likely, is the recall of Matt Prior to the ODI side. Whether this be as wicket keeper or not doesn’t really bother me. He clearly has the ability with the bat to cope as a top six batsmen. Whilst he too only averages 22.90 after his return to the side last year, scoring the one fifty, he is without doubt a better batsman than Mustard. He averages 40.14 in Test cricket and is so far the leading scorer in First Class cricket this season, with 473 runs at an average of 67. He has only failed to pass fifty once in fact and in Sussex’s most recent game scored both a hundred and fifty, whilst nobody else was able to even get past forty. His efforts won the game. That record clearly deserves rewarding. What of his wicket keeping though? Well, it is often the unreported facet of the game. Without being there it is hard to judge. Some reports suggest improvement and this would be understandable, away from the scrutiny and pressure of the international arena. In his favour is that he played well as the keeper for England in limited overs cricket and did not make the same volume of mistakes as in Test match cricket, mistakes for which he was rightly dropped. His keeping will need to be at a much higher level before he returns to Test cricket. However, a return to the ODI side will enable him to ease his way back in, set about keeping successfully through fifty overs, rather than two hundred or more over five days.
If Prior is to come in for Mustard, then I may well bat him down the order, where he operates so well for Sussex. He could also open of course, a position he has yet to convince in at international level. Vikram Solanki is the only other real candidate for the opening role, yet he has been in and out of the side over so many years that I doubt he will be selected, despite his excellent limited overs form. My definite opener would be Ian Bell as I feel he is the player England should look to, to bat through the innings. His best ODI innings for my mind was against Australia when he opened. His promotion would allow Kevin Pietersen to bat at number three, where he could better dictate the game for England. This could be the fresh change with Pietersen needs in order to reinvigorate his own game and focus on his strength, being positive. At four would come Owais Shah, as I believe that too much of his ability against spin is lost down at number six, plus England now have better options down the order. Usman Afzaal and Samit Patel could also be in contention for this position in the future, given their impressive allround performances for their counties in the FP Trophy thus far this season.
Five would be the captain, Paul Collingwood, in his familiar role. At six I would have Ravi Bopara who is enjoying a good start to the season. At seven would be Luke Wright (if Prior were to open, it may be worth swapping the two around at some point), as he has so far played his best cricket for England at the death. Eight would be Andrew Flintoff when he returns, until then Dimi Mascarenhas would be a sound choice and the only near replacement which England really have. Nine would be the ever improving Stuart Broad, who looks more at home in the ODI side than the Test team. Ten would be the ever reliable Ryan Sidebottom.
The batting depth of this side would allow England to play Monty Panesar at number eleven should he develop more variety. It can be argued though that he needs the experience of playing in order to develop that variety. His rivals are Graeme Swann, Adil Rahsid and James Tredwell, all of whom could comfortably bat at number nine, or possibly higher if required. For me, building for the next World Cup and given his success against New Zealand thus far, I would choose Panesar, with Rashid as the second spinner.
James Anderson would be the standby seamer and could also play instead of Mascarenhas until Flintoff’s return if deemed necessary. He is still far too inconsistent though and that is why he does not make the final XI. Even in Test match cricket he still bowls a lot of four balls and doesn’t seem to be able to maintain consistent pressure on the batsmen.
I believe that England are working their way towards building a successful and positive limited overs side. The introduction of more positive players has led to an improvement and will continue to do so.
THE XI:
Ian Bell
Matt Prior (wk)
Kevin Pietersen
Owais Shah
Paul Collingwood (c)
Ravi Bopara
Luke Wright
Andrew Flintoff (Mascarenhas)
Stuart Broad
Ryan Sidebottom (Anderson)
Monty Panesar
The Reserves:
James Anderson
Adil Rashid
Dimitri Mascarenhas
Alistair Cook
The first surprise is that Andrew Strauss is being considered for a recall. Whilst Strauss has clearly worked hard to reinvent himself and is deservedly reaping the benefits, there is no doubt that he is not what England need in the ODI arena, especially given the rise of whiz bang cricket and ever higher run rates. Strauss would be best left to focus on Test cricket and constructing solid innings as in the last Test match. He plays best when he isn’t under pressure to score. From this readers could be forgiven for assuming that Alistair Cook would be my pick at the top. Sorry again. Whilst Strauss isn’t going to be taking Cook’s place, somebody else will! Alistair Cook, very much like Strauss, plays best when not under pressure to score. Neither are Marcus Trescothick and playing them in the hope that they one day will be is sheer foolishness. And a Trescothick is exactly what England need up at the top of the order. Cook tried initially, but looked unnatural and kept on getting out attempting to hit over the top. Then he played his way, which brought more runs, but did nothing for the run rate in comparative terms. His first ODI hundred against India at The Rose Bowl was indicative of Cook’s problem. Whilst he did compile a brilliant innings, England could have unleashed the fury much earlier in the match, but Cook was seemingly unable to do so. Indeed, Ian Bell, his partner in crime, was able to do so to a greater extent. Once again England fell short of the mammoth score which they should have made. Of course, it wasn’t a problem in that particular game, but it could well be in the future.
England have also tried to replace Trescothick, most recently with Phil Mustard, who has also taken over the wicket keeping duties, with limited success. Mustard came to prominence during Durham’s run to the Friends Provident Final last season, which ultimately culminated in them winning their first trophy. His exciting brand of cricket was compared to Adam Gilchrist, always the bench mark for a wicket keeper it seems, no matter how unfair. At international level though, and I say this after his limited appearances, he doesn’t appear to be able to convert starts in to the bigger fifties and hundreds which win matches and are the backbone of any limited overs side. His form in domestic cricket this year has also been far from impressive, as those of us with him in our fantasy sides can testify! Jeremy Coney, after his first sighting of Mustard, described him as a leg side bully. It is hard to disagree at times, although he clearly has more to his game than this. Ultimately though, after ten matches, he is averaging 23.30, with only a solitary fifty to his name.
The change which I therefore wish to see and which looks increasingly likely, is the recall of Matt Prior to the ODI side. Whether this be as wicket keeper or not doesn’t really bother me. He clearly has the ability with the bat to cope as a top six batsmen. Whilst he too only averages 22.90 after his return to the side last year, scoring the one fifty, he is without doubt a better batsman than Mustard. He averages 40.14 in Test cricket and is so far the leading scorer in First Class cricket this season, with 473 runs at an average of 67. He has only failed to pass fifty once in fact and in Sussex’s most recent game scored both a hundred and fifty, whilst nobody else was able to even get past forty. His efforts won the game. That record clearly deserves rewarding. What of his wicket keeping though? Well, it is often the unreported facet of the game. Without being there it is hard to judge. Some reports suggest improvement and this would be understandable, away from the scrutiny and pressure of the international arena. In his favour is that he played well as the keeper for England in limited overs cricket and did not make the same volume of mistakes as in Test match cricket, mistakes for which he was rightly dropped. His keeping will need to be at a much higher level before he returns to Test cricket. However, a return to the ODI side will enable him to ease his way back in, set about keeping successfully through fifty overs, rather than two hundred or more over five days.
If Prior is to come in for Mustard, then I may well bat him down the order, where he operates so well for Sussex. He could also open of course, a position he has yet to convince in at international level. Vikram Solanki is the only other real candidate for the opening role, yet he has been in and out of the side over so many years that I doubt he will be selected, despite his excellent limited overs form. My definite opener would be Ian Bell as I feel he is the player England should look to, to bat through the innings. His best ODI innings for my mind was against Australia when he opened. His promotion would allow Kevin Pietersen to bat at number three, where he could better dictate the game for England. This could be the fresh change with Pietersen needs in order to reinvigorate his own game and focus on his strength, being positive. At four would come Owais Shah, as I believe that too much of his ability against spin is lost down at number six, plus England now have better options down the order. Usman Afzaal and Samit Patel could also be in contention for this position in the future, given their impressive allround performances for their counties in the FP Trophy thus far this season.
Five would be the captain, Paul Collingwood, in his familiar role. At six I would have Ravi Bopara who is enjoying a good start to the season. At seven would be Luke Wright (if Prior were to open, it may be worth swapping the two around at some point), as he has so far played his best cricket for England at the death. Eight would be Andrew Flintoff when he returns, until then Dimi Mascarenhas would be a sound choice and the only near replacement which England really have. Nine would be the ever improving Stuart Broad, who looks more at home in the ODI side than the Test team. Ten would be the ever reliable Ryan Sidebottom.
The batting depth of this side would allow England to play Monty Panesar at number eleven should he develop more variety. It can be argued though that he needs the experience of playing in order to develop that variety. His rivals are Graeme Swann, Adil Rahsid and James Tredwell, all of whom could comfortably bat at number nine, or possibly higher if required. For me, building for the next World Cup and given his success against New Zealand thus far, I would choose Panesar, with Rashid as the second spinner.
James Anderson would be the standby seamer and could also play instead of Mascarenhas until Flintoff’s return if deemed necessary. He is still far too inconsistent though and that is why he does not make the final XI. Even in Test match cricket he still bowls a lot of four balls and doesn’t seem to be able to maintain consistent pressure on the batsmen.
I believe that England are working their way towards building a successful and positive limited overs side. The introduction of more positive players has led to an improvement and will continue to do so.
THE XI:
Ian Bell
Matt Prior (wk)
Kevin Pietersen
Owais Shah
Paul Collingwood (c)
Ravi Bopara
Luke Wright
Andrew Flintoff (Mascarenhas)
Stuart Broad
Ryan Sidebottom (Anderson)
Monty Panesar
The Reserves:
James Anderson
Adil Rashid
Dimitri Mascarenhas
Alistair Cook
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Panesar's progress
Monty Panesar has had an amazing impact as both a player and a personality in his relatively short Test career. With his excellent bowling, his exuberant wicket celebrations and sometimes comical fielding it is little wonder that cricket fans, particularly those who support England, have taken him to their hearts. But how good is Panesar as a Test cricketer?
In my view Panesar is a wonderfully gifted bowler, who has already shown himself to be a match-winner, and who can become great if he continues to learn and improve his game. It is fair to say that his batting and fielding are distinctly average, though he has progressed in these disciplines after being laughably poor at the start of his Test career. How much he can improve in them is a matter of conjecture, though with his spirit and willingness to work there is no reason why he can't make himself a decent fielder and show good resistance in his batting. But it is as a bowler that Panesar shows his cricketing class.
Starting his Test career in India, arguably the hardest of all places for a spinner, Panesar showed good heart and no little skill. He claimed some notable wickets, including that of the legendary Tendulkar. Under the heat and pressure of his first series Panesar fell away towards the end, but showed enough to know that England had a rare talent on their hands.
Panesar followed this up with two excellent series' at home against Sri Lanka and Pakistan, taking 10 and 17 wickets, respectively. This was significant because it showed that Panesar could be a match-winner, that he could bowl well against top players of spin and that he could handle the pressure of his home crowd's expectations.
On a high after these 7 successful Tests at home Panesar had every right to believe he would have a crack at the Australians, as England looked to defend the Ashes in the lion's den. Instead, in one of the most foolish of many foolish moves by the England management on that tour, Panesar was dropped in favour of Ashley Giles. By the time Panesar was recalled England were 2-0 down in the series, having just capitulated at Adelaide, a pitch that Pansesar would have loved to bowl on.
Thrown into the action on a bouncy Perth wicket Panesar bowled brilliantly, claiming 5 for 92 in the first innings. Sadly, this wonderful effort was wasted as England failed to get the big first innings lead they so desperately needed and the match was lost as the Australians obliterated England's bowling in their second innings. Panesar still managed to get 3 wickets in the second innings, despite being targetted by the Australian batsmen. The series was lost and Panesar's efforts, like England's, tailed off in a series that ended in a 5-0 humiliation.
Far from suffering any signs of shell-shock after such a heavy defeat, Panesar bounced back in the next series at home against the West Indies. He took 23 wickets @18.69 in just 4 matches, claiming the player of the series award. It is true to say that the West Indies were a weak Test team, but their batting line-up still included Gayle, Sarwan, Chanderpaul and Bravo, all good Test batsmen. It is also worth remembering that Panesar had only played 13 Tests at the time and would be rightly considered to be still learning his trade. To so dominate an international side was a great achievement for a young bowler. It also showed that Panesar could bowl consistently well through out a series.
After his most successful series Panesar faced the most difficult time of his Test career, when there would be unbelievable calls for him to be dropped. It was at home against a resurgent India that things started to go wrong. In fairness, though, Panesar's problems in that series, which England lost 1-0, were mirrored by most of the other England bowlers. He still managed to claim 8 wickets and only really failed at the Oval, which was a bore draw on a ridiculous batting paradise, where even Kumble was able to score a chanceless century.
The next series was a forbidding trip to Sri Lanka, against a team who thrived on home soil and who had the best bowler in the world in their ranks, the incomparable Muttiah Muralitharan. To compare Panesar to such an all-time great as Murali is unfair in the extreme, but that is what happened in the hype leading up to the start of the series. Clearly the Sri Lankan batsmen had targetted Panesar as England's danger man and they attacked him from the start. Early on, though, Panesar bowled well and took wickets, but as the series wore on he struggled more and more.
Unable to take enough wickets against such wonderful players of spin, Panesar started to fiddle with his game and lost some of his confidence. The Sri Lankans dominated England and Panesar could not make the breakthroughs he would have expected to. His economy rate was still good, but the Sri Lankans batted patiently against him, accumulating winning totals. It was a lesson for Panesar on what was only his third tour, all of which had been to places where England traditionally struggled. He certainly did not disgrace himself, though like in India before his performances tailed away, suggesting that he still needed to work on his stamina to keep bowling long spells in the heat and humidity.
Finally, against a relatively weak New Zealand, Panesar regained his verve and form, taking 11 wickets in generally seam friendly conditions on England's tour. He has followed that up with 9 wickets in two matches in the current home Test series against the Kiwis, including a man of the match winning, Test best 6 for 37 at Old Trafford just two days ago.
Those who were writing Panesar off should note that he has taken 101 Test wickets in just 28 Tests, including the tough tours of India, Australia and Sri Lanka. It is also revealing to compare Panesar's record after 28 Tests to that of Warne and Muralitharan at the same stage in their careers. Warne had by then established himself as a match winner for the dominating Australians, but had still only taken 125 wickets @24.35, much better than Panesar, but still not out of sight. Interestingly, Warne had only had 6 five wicket hauls to Panesar's 8, with both of them having had one 10 wicket haul. Murali, however, had only taken 107 wickets @30.64, with 7 five wicket hauls, a very similar record to Panesar after 28 matches.
Now, I am not going to say that Panesar will go on to be anywhere near as great as these two legends. For a start he is a finger spinner and does not have the mystique that surrounds Murali and Warne, nor the variety of wicket-taking deliveries. What I will say is that Panesar should improve and continue to take a lot of wickets for England. That he is a proven match-winner already and that it would be foolish in the extreme to consider dropping him unless his form dips alarmingly for an extended period of time, not just a handful of matches.
In my view Panesar is a wonderfully gifted bowler, who has already shown himself to be a match-winner, and who can become great if he continues to learn and improve his game. It is fair to say that his batting and fielding are distinctly average, though he has progressed in these disciplines after being laughably poor at the start of his Test career. How much he can improve in them is a matter of conjecture, though with his spirit and willingness to work there is no reason why he can't make himself a decent fielder and show good resistance in his batting. But it is as a bowler that Panesar shows his cricketing class.
Starting his Test career in India, arguably the hardest of all places for a spinner, Panesar showed good heart and no little skill. He claimed some notable wickets, including that of the legendary Tendulkar. Under the heat and pressure of his first series Panesar fell away towards the end, but showed enough to know that England had a rare talent on their hands.
Panesar followed this up with two excellent series' at home against Sri Lanka and Pakistan, taking 10 and 17 wickets, respectively. This was significant because it showed that Panesar could be a match-winner, that he could bowl well against top players of spin and that he could handle the pressure of his home crowd's expectations.
On a high after these 7 successful Tests at home Panesar had every right to believe he would have a crack at the Australians, as England looked to defend the Ashes in the lion's den. Instead, in one of the most foolish of many foolish moves by the England management on that tour, Panesar was dropped in favour of Ashley Giles. By the time Panesar was recalled England were 2-0 down in the series, having just capitulated at Adelaide, a pitch that Pansesar would have loved to bowl on.
Thrown into the action on a bouncy Perth wicket Panesar bowled brilliantly, claiming 5 for 92 in the first innings. Sadly, this wonderful effort was wasted as England failed to get the big first innings lead they so desperately needed and the match was lost as the Australians obliterated England's bowling in their second innings. Panesar still managed to get 3 wickets in the second innings, despite being targetted by the Australian batsmen. The series was lost and Panesar's efforts, like England's, tailed off in a series that ended in a 5-0 humiliation.
Far from suffering any signs of shell-shock after such a heavy defeat, Panesar bounced back in the next series at home against the West Indies. He took 23 wickets @18.69 in just 4 matches, claiming the player of the series award. It is true to say that the West Indies were a weak Test team, but their batting line-up still included Gayle, Sarwan, Chanderpaul and Bravo, all good Test batsmen. It is also worth remembering that Panesar had only played 13 Tests at the time and would be rightly considered to be still learning his trade. To so dominate an international side was a great achievement for a young bowler. It also showed that Panesar could bowl consistently well through out a series.
After his most successful series Panesar faced the most difficult time of his Test career, when there would be unbelievable calls for him to be dropped. It was at home against a resurgent India that things started to go wrong. In fairness, though, Panesar's problems in that series, which England lost 1-0, were mirrored by most of the other England bowlers. He still managed to claim 8 wickets and only really failed at the Oval, which was a bore draw on a ridiculous batting paradise, where even Kumble was able to score a chanceless century.
The next series was a forbidding trip to Sri Lanka, against a team who thrived on home soil and who had the best bowler in the world in their ranks, the incomparable Muttiah Muralitharan. To compare Panesar to such an all-time great as Murali is unfair in the extreme, but that is what happened in the hype leading up to the start of the series. Clearly the Sri Lankan batsmen had targetted Panesar as England's danger man and they attacked him from the start. Early on, though, Panesar bowled well and took wickets, but as the series wore on he struggled more and more.
Unable to take enough wickets against such wonderful players of spin, Panesar started to fiddle with his game and lost some of his confidence. The Sri Lankans dominated England and Panesar could not make the breakthroughs he would have expected to. His economy rate was still good, but the Sri Lankans batted patiently against him, accumulating winning totals. It was a lesson for Panesar on what was only his third tour, all of which had been to places where England traditionally struggled. He certainly did not disgrace himself, though like in India before his performances tailed away, suggesting that he still needed to work on his stamina to keep bowling long spells in the heat and humidity.
Finally, against a relatively weak New Zealand, Panesar regained his verve and form, taking 11 wickets in generally seam friendly conditions on England's tour. He has followed that up with 9 wickets in two matches in the current home Test series against the Kiwis, including a man of the match winning, Test best 6 for 37 at Old Trafford just two days ago.
Those who were writing Panesar off should note that he has taken 101 Test wickets in just 28 Tests, including the tough tours of India, Australia and Sri Lanka. It is also revealing to compare Panesar's record after 28 Tests to that of Warne and Muralitharan at the same stage in their careers. Warne had by then established himself as a match winner for the dominating Australians, but had still only taken 125 wickets @24.35, much better than Panesar, but still not out of sight. Interestingly, Warne had only had 6 five wicket hauls to Panesar's 8, with both of them having had one 10 wicket haul. Murali, however, had only taken 107 wickets @30.64, with 7 five wicket hauls, a very similar record to Panesar after 28 matches.
Now, I am not going to say that Panesar will go on to be anywhere near as great as these two legends. For a start he is a finger spinner and does not have the mystique that surrounds Murali and Warne, nor the variety of wicket-taking deliveries. What I will say is that Panesar should improve and continue to take a lot of wickets for England. That he is a proven match-winner already and that it would be foolish in the extreme to consider dropping him unless his form dips alarmingly for an extended period of time, not just a handful of matches.
Monday, 19 May 2008
England's quartet of promise
It seems that England have finally found a bowling unit again. After a lot of fiddling around and numerous injuries and losses of form in recent years, the quartet who now hold the England bowling positions are starting to look like they work well together.
Even the usually inconsistent Anderson has started to perform for more than one Test in a row, perhaps starting to fulfil his early promise, though he has a long way to go to completely convince. What is good is that he seems to enjoy bowling with Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar and Vaughan has started to have much more faith in him.
There is little doubt that both Panesar and Sidebottom have firmly established themselves in the team. Both left-armers have the skill and spirit necessary to succeed at the highest level and have produced several match-winning performances.
Broad is by no means the finished article, but has shown the priceless ability to learn with each bowling spell. This continual improvement should take him on the road to success in the five day game, though he will, no doubt, have many stern tests ahead.
England may have failed to push their advantage in the First Test against New Zealand, which ended in the damp and murk today, but the bowlers showed that they can fire, both individually and as a unit. With better support from their fielders and better umpiring they could have forced a serious wobble from the New Zealand line-up and given the England batsmen a late chase for victory.
Roll on the Second Test and another interesting installment in the development of England's new look quartet.
Even the usually inconsistent Anderson has started to perform for more than one Test in a row, perhaps starting to fulfil his early promise, though he has a long way to go to completely convince. What is good is that he seems to enjoy bowling with Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar and Vaughan has started to have much more faith in him.
There is little doubt that both Panesar and Sidebottom have firmly established themselves in the team. Both left-armers have the skill and spirit necessary to succeed at the highest level and have produced several match-winning performances.
Broad is by no means the finished article, but has shown the priceless ability to learn with each bowling spell. This continual improvement should take him on the road to success in the five day game, though he will, no doubt, have many stern tests ahead.
England may have failed to push their advantage in the First Test against New Zealand, which ended in the damp and murk today, but the bowlers showed that they can fire, both individually and as a unit. With better support from their fielders and better umpiring they could have forced a serious wobble from the New Zealand line-up and given the England batsmen a late chase for victory.
Roll on the Second Test and another interesting installment in the development of England's new look quartet.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Test XI of 2007-2008
With the batting order already set out, the bowling line up for the statistical side of the year is revealed...
Top 6 Opening Bowlers (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)
Steyn (SAF) - ave 16.24 / s/r 28.90 / eco 3.36
Lee (AUS) - ave 20.57 / s/r 42.2 / eco 2.92
Sidebottom (ENG) - ave 25.39 / s/r 54.10 / eco 2.81
Vaas (SRL) - ave 25.50 / s/r 54.10 / eco 2.82
Zhan (IND) - ave 25.52 / s/r 48.50 / eco 3.15
Martin (NZL) - ave 26.90 / s/r 51.80 / eco 3.11
Top 3 First Change Bowlers (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)
Clark (AUS) - ave 31.00 / s/r 64.00 / eco 2.90
M. Morkel (SAF) - ave 31.35 / s/r 50.90 / eco 3.69
R.P. Singh (IND) - ave 39.32 / s/r 58.30 / eco 4.04
(Chris Tremlett (ENG) (ave 29.69 / s/r 66.00 / eco 2.69) was the best performing first change bowler of the year, but only played three matches versus India)
Top 3 Spinners (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)
Muralitharan (SRL) - ave 24.39 / s/r 54.50 / eco 2.68
Panesar (ENG) - ave 31.40 / s/r 63.80 / eco 2.95
Harris (SAF) - ave 31.66 / s/r 54.5 / eco 2.62
So the Test XI of 2007-2008, as indicated by the statistics, is as follows:
Virender Sehwag (IND)
Neil McKenzie (SAF)
Kumar Sangakkara (SRL)
Mahela Jayawardene (c) (SRL)
Shivnarine Chanderpaul (WIN)
Andrew Symonds (AUS)
Kamran Akmal (wk) (PAK)
Brett Lee (AUS)
Stuart Clark (AUS)
Dale Steyn (SAF)
Muttiah Muralitharan (SRL)
Some Thoughts...
The immediately striking feature of this list is that it contains not one single England player. Furthermore, only Alistair Cook made it into the top three for any one position in the batting line up. On the bowling front both Ryan Sidebottom (who but for many a dropped catch would have been in the XI) and Monty Panesar put in good showings. Furthermore, both Chris Tremlett and Stuart Broad would have figured were it not for their lack of games over the past twelve months. This indicates well where England's problems, the batting line up should be under careful scrutiny over the coming months.
The wicket keeping situation is of particular interest also. The three leading run scoring wicket keepers are not the three best wicket keepers in terms of dismissals. Whilst the number of chances created, types of chances created and type of bowler kept to obviously effect these statistics, it is still an interesting point. Most cricket fans would take Gilchrist or McCullum over Akmal, Prior or Dhoni.
Neil McKenzie and Virender Sehwag have obviously benefitted from flat tracks this past year, with a double hundred and triple hundred scored by each respecitively on the same placid wicket. However, this is a statistical XI and to have compiled such vast innings takes huge amounts of concentration, desire and skill. Matthew Hayden and Younus Khan meanwhile would have pipped McKenzie and Kumar Sangakkara, were it not for the latter two's cash-in games against Bangladesh.
Mahela Jayawardene (even discounting games against Bangladesh) and Shivnarine Chanderpaul were the stand out batsmen of the year. Both of them taumented England at different stages in the year and have shown an aptitude for not giving their wickets away. They are two batsmen deserving of the utmost respect and it would have beeen interesting to see how they would have performed in the Australian side over the past decade.
Andrew Symonds has emerged as an integral cog in the Australian middle order. For the purposes of this review only his batting was considered, but he did also boast an average of 25.27 and strike rate of 55.60 with the ball in the last twelve months. When put together with his superbly athletic fielding, he is a formidable package indeed, being able to bowl both accurate and swinging medium pace and off-spinners as well.
Dale Steyn's figures meanwhile deserve a remark. To take 78 wickets in 12 months is remarkable, even if 14 of those came in Bangladesh. He is a frightening prospect who appears to be realising his potential and the upcoming tours of England and Australia will show just how good he, and team mate Morne Morkel, are.
The final comment must be about the spin bowling department. There is no surprise about the leader here, but some concerning second and third. Both England and South Africa have notoriously been missing a quality spinner for well in excess of a decade. Monty Panesar and Paul Harris share much in common. They are out and out spin bowlers and do not pretend to be multi-faceted cricketers, although they do work hard. They have both done well to come in well ahead of Daniel Vettori, Harbajhan Singh and Danish Kaneria, although Anil Kumble was close (ave 32.68 / s/r 61.50/ eco 3.18). Meanwhile, the Australian spin bowling duo of Stuart MacGill and Brad Hogg, did not manage to average below 60 with the ball. The Australian seamers have so far been good enough to make up for this failing, but will that continue? We shall have to wait and see.
Top 6 Opening Bowlers (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)
Steyn (SAF) - ave 16.24 / s/r 28.90 / eco 3.36
Lee (AUS) - ave 20.57 / s/r 42.2 / eco 2.92
Sidebottom (ENG) - ave 25.39 / s/r 54.10 / eco 2.81
Vaas (SRL) - ave 25.50 / s/r 54.10 / eco 2.82
Zhan (IND) - ave 25.52 / s/r 48.50 / eco 3.15
Martin (NZL) - ave 26.90 / s/r 51.80 / eco 3.11
Top 3 First Change Bowlers (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)
Clark (AUS) - ave 31.00 / s/r 64.00 / eco 2.90
M. Morkel (SAF) - ave 31.35 / s/r 50.90 / eco 3.69
R.P. Singh (IND) - ave 39.32 / s/r 58.30 / eco 4.04
(Chris Tremlett (ENG) (ave 29.69 / s/r 66.00 / eco 2.69) was the best performing first change bowler of the year, but only played three matches versus India)
Top 3 Spinners (Last 12 Months – Minimum 5 Games)
Muralitharan (SRL) - ave 24.39 / s/r 54.50 / eco 2.68
Panesar (ENG) - ave 31.40 / s/r 63.80 / eco 2.95
Harris (SAF) - ave 31.66 / s/r 54.5 / eco 2.62
So the Test XI of 2007-2008, as indicated by the statistics, is as follows:
Virender Sehwag (IND)
Neil McKenzie (SAF)
Kumar Sangakkara (SRL)
Mahela Jayawardene (c) (SRL)
Shivnarine Chanderpaul (WIN)
Andrew Symonds (AUS)
Kamran Akmal (wk) (PAK)
Brett Lee (AUS)
Stuart Clark (AUS)
Dale Steyn (SAF)
Muttiah Muralitharan (SRL)
Some Thoughts...
The immediately striking feature of this list is that it contains not one single England player. Furthermore, only Alistair Cook made it into the top three for any one position in the batting line up. On the bowling front both Ryan Sidebottom (who but for many a dropped catch would have been in the XI) and Monty Panesar put in good showings. Furthermore, both Chris Tremlett and Stuart Broad would have figured were it not for their lack of games over the past twelve months. This indicates well where England's problems, the batting line up should be under careful scrutiny over the coming months.
The wicket keeping situation is of particular interest also. The three leading run scoring wicket keepers are not the three best wicket keepers in terms of dismissals. Whilst the number of chances created, types of chances created and type of bowler kept to obviously effect these statistics, it is still an interesting point. Most cricket fans would take Gilchrist or McCullum over Akmal, Prior or Dhoni.
Neil McKenzie and Virender Sehwag have obviously benefitted from flat tracks this past year, with a double hundred and triple hundred scored by each respecitively on the same placid wicket. However, this is a statistical XI and to have compiled such vast innings takes huge amounts of concentration, desire and skill. Matthew Hayden and Younus Khan meanwhile would have pipped McKenzie and Kumar Sangakkara, were it not for the latter two's cash-in games against Bangladesh.
Mahela Jayawardene (even discounting games against Bangladesh) and Shivnarine Chanderpaul were the stand out batsmen of the year. Both of them taumented England at different stages in the year and have shown an aptitude for not giving their wickets away. They are two batsmen deserving of the utmost respect and it would have beeen interesting to see how they would have performed in the Australian side over the past decade.
Andrew Symonds has emerged as an integral cog in the Australian middle order. For the purposes of this review only his batting was considered, but he did also boast an average of 25.27 and strike rate of 55.60 with the ball in the last twelve months. When put together with his superbly athletic fielding, he is a formidable package indeed, being able to bowl both accurate and swinging medium pace and off-spinners as well.
Dale Steyn's figures meanwhile deserve a remark. To take 78 wickets in 12 months is remarkable, even if 14 of those came in Bangladesh. He is a frightening prospect who appears to be realising his potential and the upcoming tours of England and Australia will show just how good he, and team mate Morne Morkel, are.
The final comment must be about the spin bowling department. There is no surprise about the leader here, but some concerning second and third. Both England and South Africa have notoriously been missing a quality spinner for well in excess of a decade. Monty Panesar and Paul Harris share much in common. They are out and out spin bowlers and do not pretend to be multi-faceted cricketers, although they do work hard. They have both done well to come in well ahead of Daniel Vettori, Harbajhan Singh and Danish Kaneria, although Anil Kumble was close (ave 32.68 / s/r 61.50/ eco 3.18). Meanwhile, the Australian spin bowling duo of Stuart MacGill and Brad Hogg, did not manage to average below 60 with the ball. The Australian seamers have so far been good enough to make up for this failing, but will that continue? We shall have to wait and see.
Monday, 17 March 2008
New-look atack - but too soon to declare a new era
So it seems England can play cricket after all. They performed commendably to square the series, but we should not lose sight of the fact this is a side England were expected to beat.
Nonetheless, there are real causes for optimism - at last. Tim Ambrose played a pugnacious and decisive counter-attacking innings of 102, displaying the temperament to thrive at international level. His keeping, typically and infuriatingly, did not match the standards he displayed in the first Test, however.
England's bowling was reinvigorated after dispensing with Messrs Hoggard and Harmison. Ryan Sidebottom gave another exemplary display, indefatigable, relentlessly consistent and truly incisive with the new ball. But he has performed so well since his comeback that such displays are now expected.
Of greater cheer were the showings of James Anderson and Stuart Broad. When conditions offered swing, as they did at Lord's against India last summer, Anderson was superb. But only for so long can he can get by on the occasional fine showing. On the flatter pitch that we will see at Napier, he needs to display improved control, so batsmen do not run away when wickets are hard to come by. Stuart Broad was not flattered by his figures but provided another sign of his readiness for international cricket, probing away and delivering the key wicket of Stephen Fleming.
Yet this was far from the perfect performance: for one, the fielding deteriorated alarmingly from the phenomenal catching on-show at Hamilton. And, yet again, the top-order displayed their depressing propensity for getting in then out - alarmingly, none of the top six have even hit 70 all series. Andrew Strauss probably did 'just enough' to remain in the side, but it is an indictement of the current set-up that a scratchy 40 every game, together with fast-fading memories of innings from the past, are sufficient for a man to retain his place.
One suspects England will not take the clear-sighted view that he patently looks no more like succeeding than he did when he was dropped. When he does go, the belated inclusion of Owais Shah may act as the catalyst for other batsmen to get out of the 'comfort zone' that seems to be afflicting them.
For England to seal the series on a pitch that will be less conducive to seam-bowling than this, more is needed from Monty Panesar, who averages 48 over his last eight Tests. It is now time for him to regain the vivaciousness and sheer joy he brought to his early Tests.
Nonetheless, there are real causes for optimism - at last. Tim Ambrose played a pugnacious and decisive counter-attacking innings of 102, displaying the temperament to thrive at international level. His keeping, typically and infuriatingly, did not match the standards he displayed in the first Test, however.
England's bowling was reinvigorated after dispensing with Messrs Hoggard and Harmison. Ryan Sidebottom gave another exemplary display, indefatigable, relentlessly consistent and truly incisive with the new ball. But he has performed so well since his comeback that such displays are now expected.
Of greater cheer were the showings of James Anderson and Stuart Broad. When conditions offered swing, as they did at Lord's against India last summer, Anderson was superb. But only for so long can he can get by on the occasional fine showing. On the flatter pitch that we will see at Napier, he needs to display improved control, so batsmen do not run away when wickets are hard to come by. Stuart Broad was not flattered by his figures but provided another sign of his readiness for international cricket, probing away and delivering the key wicket of Stephen Fleming.
Yet this was far from the perfect performance: for one, the fielding deteriorated alarmingly from the phenomenal catching on-show at Hamilton. And, yet again, the top-order displayed their depressing propensity for getting in then out - alarmingly, none of the top six have even hit 70 all series. Andrew Strauss probably did 'just enough' to remain in the side, but it is an indictement of the current set-up that a scratchy 40 every game, together with fast-fading memories of innings from the past, are sufficient for a man to retain his place.
One suspects England will not take the clear-sighted view that he patently looks no more like succeeding than he did when he was dropped. When he does go, the belated inclusion of Owais Shah may act as the catalyst for other batsmen to get out of the 'comfort zone' that seems to be afflicting them.
For England to seal the series on a pitch that will be less conducive to seam-bowling than this, more is needed from Monty Panesar, who averages 48 over his last eight Tests. It is now time for him to regain the vivaciousness and sheer joy he brought to his early Tests.
Friday, 21 December 2007
The England Diagnosis: Bowling and Fielding
What can England do from here? (Click here for the batting diagnosis)
Wicket-keeping
Matt Prior batted with gumption and no little skill in the series, making two excellent half-centuries. However, his keeping looks like it may never be good enough: he has now missed nine chances in 10 Tests, a success ratio of just 72%, around 10% worse than Geraint Jones. Add to this the problems caused by his positioning behind the stumps, leading the slips astray, and his failure to convince keeping to Monty Panesar and England have much to consider. They would have hoped for a 'keeper who could average close to 40 with the bat and keep to a competent level. Prior looks like he may be able to do the former but should probably be dropped for his keeping, as Simon Hughes has suggested. Who should replace him, if indeed he should be replaced? How long have have you got?
Fielding
England's fielding in this series was worse than for some time, with two of the side's best fielders, in Bell and Collingwood, disappointing in the slips, and few bright spots elsewhere. The importance of a reliable cordon is easy to forget; but England have lost Messrs Trescothick, Flintoff, Strauss and Giles, four excellent close fielders, without replacing them. The solution is not easy to find but, clearly, must work must be done on the close fielding before the New Zealand tour.
Bowling
England only bowled Sri Lanka out once in the series although, considering the shoddy catching and unhelpful conditions, there were mitigating circumstances. The biggest concern was Monty Panesar, who was a huge disappointment for the second consecutive series and may not be an automatic selection for much longer if Graeme Swann continues to excel in the limited-overs game.
Of the seamers, it may now be time to dispense with the perennially frustrating Test version of Jimmy Anderson, while Stuart Broad may is not quite be ready yet. Ryan Sidebottom should be dropped based on his series average of 63, but he was supremely unfortunate yet again and should be effective in New Zealand. Meanwhile, Matthew Hoggard confirmed he is England's most resourceful seamer with his supreme spell on the series' opening day, while Steve Harmison cut out the extras, proved his desire, and will almost certainly start the next Test. The man who deserves a recall is surely Chris Tremlett; though unimpressive with the white ball, he claimed 13 wickets at 29 against India and possesses tremendous bounce and good consistency.
What should England do from here?
Wicket-keeping
Matt Prior batted with gumption and no little skill in the series, making two excellent half-centuries. However, his keeping looks like it may never be good enough: he has now missed nine chances in 10 Tests, a success ratio of just 72%, around 10% worse than Geraint Jones. Add to this the problems caused by his positioning behind the stumps, leading the slips astray, and his failure to convince keeping to Monty Panesar and England have much to consider. They would have hoped for a 'keeper who could average close to 40 with the bat and keep to a competent level. Prior looks like he may be able to do the former but should probably be dropped for his keeping, as Simon Hughes has suggested. Who should replace him, if indeed he should be replaced? How long have have you got?
Fielding
England's fielding in this series was worse than for some time, with two of the side's best fielders, in Bell and Collingwood, disappointing in the slips, and few bright spots elsewhere. The importance of a reliable cordon is easy to forget; but England have lost Messrs Trescothick, Flintoff, Strauss and Giles, four excellent close fielders, without replacing them. The solution is not easy to find but, clearly, must work must be done on the close fielding before the New Zealand tour.
Bowling
England only bowled Sri Lanka out once in the series although, considering the shoddy catching and unhelpful conditions, there were mitigating circumstances. The biggest concern was Monty Panesar, who was a huge disappointment for the second consecutive series and may not be an automatic selection for much longer if Graeme Swann continues to excel in the limited-overs game.
Of the seamers, it may now be time to dispense with the perennially frustrating Test version of Jimmy Anderson, while Stuart Broad may is not quite be ready yet. Ryan Sidebottom should be dropped based on his series average of 63, but he was supremely unfortunate yet again and should be effective in New Zealand. Meanwhile, Matthew Hoggard confirmed he is England's most resourceful seamer with his supreme spell on the series' opening day, while Steve Harmison cut out the extras, proved his desire, and will almost certainly start the next Test. The man who deserves a recall is surely Chris Tremlett; though unimpressive with the white ball, he claimed 13 wickets at 29 against India and possesses tremendous bounce and good consistency.
What should England do from here?
Friday, 14 December 2007
What now for the 3rd Test?
England’s surprisingly easy passage to drawing the 2nd test must give some heart to the team looking to come back from the disappointment of the first. But for the freak dismissal of Michael Vaughan and a couple of “unfortunate” decisions to remove Kevin Pieteresen and Ali Cook, England could have been looking at a formidable first innings score of their own. However, on a slow and dead pitch, only Murali was the only bowler likely to cause major problems and England saw him off with relative ease.
The pitch at Galle will be an unknown quantity. This is the first game at the ground since the Tsunami and its behaviour will be interesting to see. England need to win to square the series, in the same situation as in India two years ago, where Shaun Udal surprised everyone and gave Andrew Flintoff his greatest moment as England captain.
There is a case for looking at the second spinner in the party this time round too. Monty Panesar has had comfortably his most frustrating series in his short England career and is struggling to gain control over the batsmen let alone look threatening. Graeme Swann should during the ODIs that he is an attacking spin bowler and in a game where England need a positive result, he may be a short term solution. He would also bolster the batting, which could be important as I would also drop Stuart Broad from the team that played the 2nd test if Matthew Hoggard is fit to return.
The other change I would make is to replace Ravi Bopara with Owais Shah. I initially supported the inclusion of Bopara as I felt his bowling would be a crucial extra dimension. However, Vaughan has been so reluctant to bowl him that his inclusion over Shah does not seem warranted, as Shah is clearly the superior batsman. However, Bopara has done enough to suggest that there is a big talent there, and Paul Collingwood should be beginning to feel under some pressure for his place in the side.
My team for the 3rd test
Vaughan
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
Prior
Swann
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Harmison
The pitch at Galle will be an unknown quantity. This is the first game at the ground since the Tsunami and its behaviour will be interesting to see. England need to win to square the series, in the same situation as in India two years ago, where Shaun Udal surprised everyone and gave Andrew Flintoff his greatest moment as England captain.
There is a case for looking at the second spinner in the party this time round too. Monty Panesar has had comfortably his most frustrating series in his short England career and is struggling to gain control over the batsmen let alone look threatening. Graeme Swann should during the ODIs that he is an attacking spin bowler and in a game where England need a positive result, he may be a short term solution. He would also bolster the batting, which could be important as I would also drop Stuart Broad from the team that played the 2nd test if Matthew Hoggard is fit to return.
The other change I would make is to replace Ravi Bopara with Owais Shah. I initially supported the inclusion of Bopara as I felt his bowling would be a crucial extra dimension. However, Vaughan has been so reluctant to bowl him that his inclusion over Shah does not seem warranted, as Shah is clearly the superior batsman. However, Bopara has done enough to suggest that there is a big talent there, and Paul Collingwood should be beginning to feel under some pressure for his place in the side.
My team for the 3rd test
Vaughan
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
Prior
Swann
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Harmison
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)