For the first time in over three years, England managed to win a Test series away from home, even if the quality of the opposition means the 2-1 margin is no more than satisfactory. Here are the series ratings:
Alastair Cook 5
A series of starts - but a top-score of 60 tells its own sad story. His temperament is not in doubt, and if he can tighten up outside off-stump a fine career awaits.
Michael Vaughan 4
The skipper struggled due to a combination of good new-ball bowling, a technical fault - to play too square on and, sometimes, slightly to leg - and bouts of rashness. His captaincy was fairly impressive, however, as he showed a willingness to use bowlers in long spells when they were displaying an aptitude for the fight. An equally poor series with the bat at home, however, and the vultures will begin to hover.
Andrew Strauss 6
Looked woefully out of form in the first five innings, as one would have expected from a man whose recall did not exactly espouse true meritocracy. A career-saving 177 was hugely admirable, but it comes with the major caveat of being on a supremely flat track against an understandably jaded and limited attack. Clearly, he still needs to prove he can score runs against the best which, mentally fatigued and with a technique bowlers had closely scrutinised, he painfully struggled to in the year before being axed.
Kevin Pietersen 7
Exploded into life with a magnificent hundred that saved England from a depressing defeat from the miserable depths of 4/3. Will be hungry to regain his consistency, and the Kiwis will be apprehensive about what he could do in the forthcoming Test series.
Ian Bell 6
His century in the final Test was an innings of supreme confidence and majestic timing, and could not have been in starker contrast to his passive 58-ball nine in the first innings, ended with a confused swipe at a long-hop. Has the ability to become a run-scoring machine if only he can find more of a relish for pressure situations and end his infuriating ability of failing to capitalise on sweet starts.
Paul Collingwood 7
Dependable and dogged, Collingwood may never look a truly Test-class batsmen but, while his determination and resilience are so strong, that won't matter. Add in five cheap wickets - his bowling has improved tremendously in the last year - and he is a vital part of the side.
Tim Ambrose 7
A good first series on all counts. Ambrose struck a crucial, momentum-seizing century in only his second Test, but his challenge will come when opponents learn not to feed his cut shot. With the gloves he was excellent, and a marked improvement on Matt Prior, even allowing for a couple of misses in the second Test.
Stuart Broad 8
Had a quietly brilliant Test in the decider, with five wickets earned from a sterling, marathon spell in either innings, complemented by 73 vital runs for once out and brilliant fielding to boot. His promise has long been known; England did not throw him in too soon, and should reap the rewards over the coming years. With his multi-faceted skills and improving accuracy on even docile tracks, already a guaranteed starter.
Ryan Sidebottom 10
Let us recite the raw statistics, for they do justice to the indefatigability, consistency, aggression, adaptability and skill he displayed all series long. Twenty-four wickets at an average of 17; a five-wicket haul in every game; a ten-wicket haul; and a hat-trick. And to think, dear Duncan would sooner pick Messrs Plunkett and Mahmood.
Steve Harmison 2
Under-prepared? Almost certainly. Lacking heart? So said many. Bereft of peace? Yes. Have most fans had enough? Yes. Has he? That is the great question, for if Harmison can allay the doubts over his mind and make some technical tweaks, there is no English bowler international batsmen would less like to face.
Matthew Hoggard 3
That imperceptible nip had gone, and he was discarded, somewhat unluckily, for the second Test. Hopefully it was merely a blip although, in his last 12 Tests Hoggard had taken 31 wickets at an average of 41.
Monty Panesar 7
Monty should learn from Vettori - his variations in pace, flight, angle and delivery. All that may be true, but Panesar is a more naturally talented spin bowler and, after eight Tests of contributing very little, delivered the match-winning performance I had hoped for.
James Anderson 4
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy. How can you bowl so devastatingly - approaching 90mph, with devilish late swing outside off-stump, only to revert to bowling rubbish next game? Ultimately, his inconsistency is simply a liability: match figures of 1-153, in just 24 overs, when considering he also went for 7.4 an over in the ODIs, prove as much. Sadly, he may not have much of an international career remaining.
The Verdict
This was an enthralling series at times, and England showed admirable character to respond to their Hamilton humbling. But this was a tentative step forward at best. The run-gorging in the third Test should not disguise the fact England have had appalling collapses in each of the last four Tests. 81 all-out; 100 all-out; 79/0 to 136/5; and 36/4. These are not the batting stats of a side whose top-order is satisfactorily functioning, and the series win should not be allowed to ignore these uncomfortable figures.
Showing posts with label New Zealand-England 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Zealand-England 2008. Show all posts
Thursday, 27 March 2008
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.
England Show Bouncebackability
It’s a curious fact, but under Michal Vaughan has never lost two test matches in a row as England’s captain. That record may have been put under threat had he been fit to lead the team to defend the Ashes last winter, but it’s also probably fair to say that the defeat wouldn’t have been so marked had he been in charge rather than Andrew Flintoff. This seems to suggest that while he is very good looking to “take the positives” and “learn from our mistakes”, his platitudes to the press are actually being taken on board.
Certainly England batted with more purpose in Wellington than they had in Hamilton on a pitch that was giving much more help to the bowlers. However, they were indebted to Paul Collingwood and the increasingly impressive Tim Ambrose to take them to a score probably a hundred runs above par. The reshaped bowling unit, however, was the most impressive aspect for England, with James Anderson in the first innings and Ryan Sidebottom in the second taking five each and Stuart Broad bowling much better than his figures gave him credit for. It is also encouraging that Vaughan is confident enough to turn to Collingwood to fulfil a role as the fourth seamer giving the side a much better balance
So England go to the final test with renewed confidence and some momentum. I would expect the team to remain unchanged, although Andrew Strauss needs to convert his starts into a major score if he is not to be jettisoned at the start of the English summer.
Certainly England batted with more purpose in Wellington than they had in Hamilton on a pitch that was giving much more help to the bowlers. However, they were indebted to Paul Collingwood and the increasingly impressive Tim Ambrose to take them to a score probably a hundred runs above par. The reshaped bowling unit, however, was the most impressive aspect for England, with James Anderson in the first innings and Ryan Sidebottom in the second taking five each and Stuart Broad bowling much better than his figures gave him credit for. It is also encouraging that Vaughan is confident enough to turn to Collingwood to fulfil a role as the fourth seamer giving the side a much better balance
So England go to the final test with renewed confidence and some momentum. I would expect the team to remain unchanged, although Andrew Strauss needs to convert his starts into a major score if he is not to be jettisoned at the start of the English summer.
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Hoggard and Harmison unceremoniously dumped
After their abject humiliation in the first Test, England had to make changes. The surprise is not the axing of Steve Harmison, who has much to do if he is to play another Test. It is the decision to drop Matthew Hoggard, who has proved his great skill and heart since last being dropped, in December 2003.
Some see this as simply absurd. Harmison is being dropped for three bad years; Hoggard, seemingly, for one bad game. However, such thinking is a gross exaggeration. For Hoggard, who once played 40 consecutive Tests, has recently been injured with alarming regularity. Moreover, his performances are not what they once were. He was wayward in the extreme in the first Test, and may have lost that imperceptible attribute - 'nip' - which is so crucial at Test level.
In his last 12 Tests, stretching back to July 2006, Hoggard has taken 31 wickets at an average of 41. While dropping him appears harsh, the problem is more with who is replacing him - James Anderson, fresh from a mauling in the ODI series and 2-95 for Auckland, and averaging 40 after 20 Tests. A better replacement would have been Charlie Shreck, who is faring excellently for Wellington and, unlike both Anderson and Hoggard, is on fine form and has been bowling plenty of first-class overs of late.
At 31, Hoggard may not have much international cricket left, but, with the goodwill he has earned from a career of relentless dedication, English fans will be willing him on to get back to his best and prove a Test force once more. With Harmison, alas, it seems everyone has long since given up.
Some see this as simply absurd. Harmison is being dropped for three bad years; Hoggard, seemingly, for one bad game. However, such thinking is a gross exaggeration. For Hoggard, who once played 40 consecutive Tests, has recently been injured with alarming regularity. Moreover, his performances are not what they once were. He was wayward in the extreme in the first Test, and may have lost that imperceptible attribute - 'nip' - which is so crucial at Test level.
In his last 12 Tests, stretching back to July 2006, Hoggard has taken 31 wickets at an average of 41. While dropping him appears harsh, the problem is more with who is replacing him - James Anderson, fresh from a mauling in the ODI series and 2-95 for Auckland, and averaging 40 after 20 Tests. A better replacement would have been Charlie Shreck, who is faring excellently for Wellington and, unlike both Anderson and Hoggard, is on fine form and has been bowling plenty of first-class overs of late.
At 31, Hoggard may not have much international cricket left, but, with the goodwill he has earned from a career of relentless dedication, English fans will be willing him on to get back to his best and prove a Test force once more. With Harmison, alas, it seems everyone has long since given up.
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Sting in the tail
England were beaten by 189 runs in the first Test. After losing their sixth wicket, New Zealand scored 185 runs more than England in the game. England’s loss was not just the result of this, clearly: negativity and a total lack of assertion amongst the batsmen and a lack of incision from three-quarters of the bowling attack are equally significant reasons. Nonetheless, why is England’s tail still so inadequate?
The infamous defeat to New Zealand at The Oval in August 1999, when England’s bottom three compromised a Test match number 10 (Andy Caddick), two 11s (Messrs Mullaly and Tufnell) and a number 12 (Ed Giddings) seemingly signalled the end of the ‘six out, all out’ days. Duncan Fletcher’s reign began with the next Test and he placed tremendous influence on developing a tail of tenacity and technique, who would cling dearly onto their wickets.
His policy was a considerable success. Ashley Giles developed into a very good number eight, while others made the odd vital contribution bashing (Steve Harmison and Simon Jones) or blocking (Matthew Hoggard).
Now England’s tail, once more, consistently falls abjectly. Hoggard’s batting has regressed, with his use as a nightwatchman increasingly absurd. Harmison has had moments when his batting appeared set to make good progress, but even fluky 15s are increasingly rare. Monty Panesar plays the odd delightful stroke but a Test average of under 7 (about the same as Hoggard’s) is frankly hopeless. That leaves Ryan Sidebottom who, as in everything he does, has been wholehearted and single-minded in his quest to fill England’s berth at number eight. His defence was admirable in Sri Lanka, but a first-class average of 12 – less than that of Stuart Clark, 11 in Australia’s last Test - shows he is probably ultimately just a willing number ten.
If England are going to improve they clearly need to squeeze every run out of their tail. Batting coach Andy Flower may be partly at fault because, as Glenn McGrath showed, even walking wickets can improve to the point of playing a part in invaluable partnerships, Chris Martin excepted. Given all the attack, except Sidebottom, are failing to deliver with the ball either – England have not taken 20 wickets in their last seven Tests - there would be considerable logic merit in selecting men like Stuart Broad as Graeme Swann, who could hardly bowl worse and would add much-needed sturdiness to the lower-order. It would be a largely defensive move, yes, but pragmatism is needed if England are to get out of their rut.
The infamous defeat to New Zealand at The Oval in August 1999, when England’s bottom three compromised a Test match number 10 (Andy Caddick), two 11s (Messrs Mullaly and Tufnell) and a number 12 (Ed Giddings) seemingly signalled the end of the ‘six out, all out’ days. Duncan Fletcher’s reign began with the next Test and he placed tremendous influence on developing a tail of tenacity and technique, who would cling dearly onto their wickets.
His policy was a considerable success. Ashley Giles developed into a very good number eight, while others made the odd vital contribution bashing (Steve Harmison and Simon Jones) or blocking (Matthew Hoggard).
Now England’s tail, once more, consistently falls abjectly. Hoggard’s batting has regressed, with his use as a nightwatchman increasingly absurd. Harmison has had moments when his batting appeared set to make good progress, but even fluky 15s are increasingly rare. Monty Panesar plays the odd delightful stroke but a Test average of under 7 (about the same as Hoggard’s) is frankly hopeless. That leaves Ryan Sidebottom who, as in everything he does, has been wholehearted and single-minded in his quest to fill England’s berth at number eight. His defence was admirable in Sri Lanka, but a first-class average of 12 – less than that of Stuart Clark, 11 in Australia’s last Test - shows he is probably ultimately just a willing number ten.
If England are going to improve they clearly need to squeeze every run out of their tail. Batting coach Andy Flower may be partly at fault because, as Glenn McGrath showed, even walking wickets can improve to the point of playing a part in invaluable partnerships, Chris Martin excepted. Given all the attack, except Sidebottom, are failing to deliver with the ball either – England have not taken 20 wickets in their last seven Tests - there would be considerable logic merit in selecting men like Stuart Broad as Graeme Swann, who could hardly bowl worse and would add much-needed sturdiness to the lower-order. It would be a largely defensive move, yes, but pragmatism is needed if England are to get out of their rut.
Sunday, 9 March 2008
England's new low
England have stumbled from one disappointment to the next post the 2005 Ashes, winning just two series out of eight. But the humiliation by New Zealand in this Test really is something else: a new low for the England side.
New Zealand played very well, without doubt. They batted with immense patience and pugnaciousness, seizing the game with the 150-run stand between Ross Taylor and Daniel Vettori. With the ball, they were relentless in their discipline, bowling cannily and with great skill on a docile track.
But still. This is a side who are ranked seventh in the world for good reason. Their best bowler by far, Shane Bond, has been scapegoated and banned for signing up with the ICL. Their bowling lacks any x-factor; even Dan Vettori averages in the mid-30s. Before this game, no one in their side averaged under 32 with the ball, or more than 40 with the bat, even allowing for a number of games against Bangladesh.
For their part, England were meek and timid. They were overwhelmed by fear with the bat as, save for some gorging on the awful West Indian attack, they have since Adelaide 2006. Scoring at 2 an over over 173 overs in their first innings defies belief in the modern Test game, especially against an attack not unreasonably considered toothless. Yes, New Zealand are perennially written off, but, for all their ODI qualities, they play fewer than half the number of Tests England do. Against South Africa - a side England would doubtless claim they would expect to beat - the Kiwis were twice pulverised, failing to past 200 over four innings in the series.
In the first innings England's batsmen exhibited their all-too-familiar tendency of failing to reach a hundred (or even 70) despite being well set. Crease occupation has been a big concern, but the real problem was their overwhelmingly defensive mindset, paralysed by fear on a slow, low track against an attack that, for all their endeavour, are no world-beaters. In the second, they were simply pathetic, collapsing in time-honed fashion like a pack of cards. On both occasions, judicious batting with a sensible, positive mindset would have insured against alarms. Paul Collingwood encapsulated the depressing timidity, crawling to a 50-ball two.
There seems to be a collective loss of self-belief and conviction, even afflicting Kevin Pietersen, that has engulfed the entire set-up, suggesting 'change for change's sake' may actually have some merit. Michael Vaughan's captaincy - though not his batting - has failed to impress since his return to the side. But on raw skill levels, too, England's deficiencies are increasingly apparent, despite their superlative catching in this game.
With the ball, England were equally pathetic, with Ryan Sidebottom's skill and tirelessness unable to cover up for the lack of incision elsewhere, with even Matthew Hoggard seriously off the pace . Most people have long since had enough of Steve Harmison's little-boy-lost impression on tours, and he has run out of excuses. So, indeed have the side, who have truly hit a nadir.
Yet the same was said when they were bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka. While Shah, Broad, Tremlett and, especially, Ramprakash and Caddick would be in the ideal XIs of many, the grim truth is that this is more or less the best England have. Don't discount more horrors to come.
New Zealand played very well, without doubt. They batted with immense patience and pugnaciousness, seizing the game with the 150-run stand between Ross Taylor and Daniel Vettori. With the ball, they were relentless in their discipline, bowling cannily and with great skill on a docile track.
But still. This is a side who are ranked seventh in the world for good reason. Their best bowler by far, Shane Bond, has been scapegoated and banned for signing up with the ICL. Their bowling lacks any x-factor; even Dan Vettori averages in the mid-30s. Before this game, no one in their side averaged under 32 with the ball, or more than 40 with the bat, even allowing for a number of games against Bangladesh.
For their part, England were meek and timid. They were overwhelmed by fear with the bat as, save for some gorging on the awful West Indian attack, they have since Adelaide 2006. Scoring at 2 an over over 173 overs in their first innings defies belief in the modern Test game, especially against an attack not unreasonably considered toothless. Yes, New Zealand are perennially written off, but, for all their ODI qualities, they play fewer than half the number of Tests England do. Against South Africa - a side England would doubtless claim they would expect to beat - the Kiwis were twice pulverised, failing to past 200 over four innings in the series.
In the first innings England's batsmen exhibited their all-too-familiar tendency of failing to reach a hundred (or even 70) despite being well set. Crease occupation has been a big concern, but the real problem was their overwhelmingly defensive mindset, paralysed by fear on a slow, low track against an attack that, for all their endeavour, are no world-beaters. In the second, they were simply pathetic, collapsing in time-honed fashion like a pack of cards. On both occasions, judicious batting with a sensible, positive mindset would have insured against alarms. Paul Collingwood encapsulated the depressing timidity, crawling to a 50-ball two.
There seems to be a collective loss of self-belief and conviction, even afflicting Kevin Pietersen, that has engulfed the entire set-up, suggesting 'change for change's sake' may actually have some merit. Michael Vaughan's captaincy - though not his batting - has failed to impress since his return to the side. But on raw skill levels, too, England's deficiencies are increasingly apparent, despite their superlative catching in this game.
With the ball, England were equally pathetic, with Ryan Sidebottom's skill and tirelessness unable to cover up for the lack of incision elsewhere, with even Matthew Hoggard seriously off the pace . Most people have long since had enough of Steve Harmison's little-boy-lost impression on tours, and he has run out of excuses. So, indeed have the side, who have truly hit a nadir.
Yet the same was said when they were bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka. While Shah, Broad, Tremlett and, especially, Ramprakash and Caddick would be in the ideal XIs of many, the grim truth is that this is more or less the best England have. Don't discount more horrors to come.
Sunday, 2 March 2008
Only victory is acceptable for England
England have the nucleus of a pretty good Test side, but the time for excuses has long gone. New Zealand were twice thrashed when they toured South Africa recently, and are much worse at Tests than one-day internationals, suffering from a lack of potency - magnified by the departure of Shane Bond - and from a brittle middle-order. If England are to have any hope of regaining their number two ranking any time soon, they should win this series by at least a 2-0 margin.
In theory, England’s pace attack should prove decisive. Matthew Hoggard and Ryan Sidebottom, in conditions that should be very conducive to their brand of swing, will be eager to attack a line-up in which there are major deficiencies. Their canny swing, subtle variations and consistency will test the techniques of the Kiwi batsmen to the hilt. And, if Steve Harmison can find his groove on pitches that are expected to offer some bounce, New Zealand’s scorecards could resemble those in South Africa, when they failed to pass 200 in four innings, in which case Monty Panesar, who needs a good series, may be marginalised.
With the bat, the controversial selection of Andrew Strauss, who had done nothing whatsoever to merit a recall, means there will be a re-jigging of the batting order. The promising Vaughan-Cook opening pair will be persisted with, and Strauss will bat at three, for the first time in his Test career. He could be a bad series away from being dropped on a more permanent basis although he played reassuringly well in making 104 in the last warm-up game and his technical flaws should not be over-exposed by a fairly toothless attack. It is led by Chris Martin, a worthy and experienced bowler but averaging over 35 if Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are excluded. Daniel Vettori is a brilliant ODI bowler, but is perhaps a little over-rated in Tests, and claimed just three wickets in South Africa.
Ian Bell will, correctly, bat above Paul Collingwood. It is a wise move because, ultimately, Bell should be a better Test batsman than Collingwood, while, as his one-day pyrotechnics showed, Collingwood may be the better man to bat with the tail. Either way, against moderate opposition Bell should be looking to make a hundred – and a big one at that. Kevin Pietersen should enjoy the bowling providing he manages to keep his ego in check, particularly against Vettori.
As so often, however, all eyes will be on England’s number seven. Tim Ambrose will be making his debut in almost as low-key a setting as Test cricket allows. It is almost unanimously agreed that his keeping is a significant improvement upon that of Matt Prior. His batting, previously his weak suit, improved to the point that he averaged 45 in Division One of the championship, as well as 70 in the Friends Provident Trophy, last season. From what I know, Ambrose appears to be the best man for the gloves in the Test side. He has an important role to play as England begin the road to recovery after a dire run of Test form that has seen them win just two of their last eight series.
In theory, England’s pace attack should prove decisive. Matthew Hoggard and Ryan Sidebottom, in conditions that should be very conducive to their brand of swing, will be eager to attack a line-up in which there are major deficiencies. Their canny swing, subtle variations and consistency will test the techniques of the Kiwi batsmen to the hilt. And, if Steve Harmison can find his groove on pitches that are expected to offer some bounce, New Zealand’s scorecards could resemble those in South Africa, when they failed to pass 200 in four innings, in which case Monty Panesar, who needs a good series, may be marginalised.
With the bat, the controversial selection of Andrew Strauss, who had done nothing whatsoever to merit a recall, means there will be a re-jigging of the batting order. The promising Vaughan-Cook opening pair will be persisted with, and Strauss will bat at three, for the first time in his Test career. He could be a bad series away from being dropped on a more permanent basis although he played reassuringly well in making 104 in the last warm-up game and his technical flaws should not be over-exposed by a fairly toothless attack. It is led by Chris Martin, a worthy and experienced bowler but averaging over 35 if Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are excluded. Daniel Vettori is a brilliant ODI bowler, but is perhaps a little over-rated in Tests, and claimed just three wickets in South Africa.
Ian Bell will, correctly, bat above Paul Collingwood. It is a wise move because, ultimately, Bell should be a better Test batsman than Collingwood, while, as his one-day pyrotechnics showed, Collingwood may be the better man to bat with the tail. Either way, against moderate opposition Bell should be looking to make a hundred – and a big one at that. Kevin Pietersen should enjoy the bowling providing he manages to keep his ego in check, particularly against Vettori.
As so often, however, all eyes will be on England’s number seven. Tim Ambrose will be making his debut in almost as low-key a setting as Test cricket allows. It is almost unanimously agreed that his keeping is a significant improvement upon that of Matt Prior. His batting, previously his weak suit, improved to the point that he averaged 45 in Division One of the championship, as well as 70 in the Friends Provident Trophy, last season. From what I know, Ambrose appears to be the best man for the gloves in the Test side. He has an important role to play as England begin the road to recovery after a dire run of Test form that has seen them win just two of their last eight series.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Strauss' recall defies logic
There is something palpably wrong with a cricket team when a batsmen can underperform for two years, culminating in 25 innings without hitting a century, and is then dropped before being recalled for doing precisely nothing. Yet that is exactly what has happened to Andrew Strauss.
After a disastrous run in the one-day side, for which he averaged 19 in his last 14 games, Strauss was dispensed with after the World Cup. He was then dropped from the Test side for the tour of Sri Lanka, a man who appeared mentally fatigued and, more worryingly, someone whose minimalist style of play had been worked out by opponents, who starved him of width outside off-stump. Unable to score prolifically through the V, Strauss appeared a man whose time at international level was up after outstanding initial success. It takes an excellent player to score 10 Test hundreds, clearly; but to recall him based on past successes, totally ignoring his form, is ridiculous.
Since the 3rd Test last summer, Strauss has not been a man reinvigorated by a break from his international career. Rather, his domestic struggles have been painful. Towards the end of the 2007 season, he could barely score a run for his county finishing with an average some 37 runs behind Owais Shah. For Northern Districts in the decidedly modest standard of Kiwi domestic cricket, he hit a century in his final game, but his overall average was 26. What justification did England have for picking him on this tour?
None whatsoever - except he was a 'safe pair of hands' at slip and, more significantly, he possessed a central contract. That was clearly a big mistake. But two wrongs do not make a right. The favoritism borders on the absurd. In England's first tour game, Strauss scored a painstaking 25-ball four, while his rival for a spot in the side - Owais Shah - hit 96. The perpetual fall guy of English cricket, Shah was inexplicably left out for Ravi Bopara in Sri Lanka and faces similarly unjust treatment here.
Because he has become a member of the 'inner circle' and despite the fact that his recent form is atrocious, Strauss will almost certainly play in the first Test. He will bat at three. It is a wise move to allow the Cook-Vaughan partnership to develop, but a bewildering one to play a man out of his normal position when he is in such dire form. Recalling Strauss evokes the blind loyalties of the Duncan Fletcher era, with the implication that reputation counts for more than consistent failings over an 18-month period. It is a selection which totally ignores any convention of picking on merit. What must the best batsman in England, and consummate number three - Mark Ramprakash - be thinking?
After a disastrous run in the one-day side, for which he averaged 19 in his last 14 games, Strauss was dispensed with after the World Cup. He was then dropped from the Test side for the tour of Sri Lanka, a man who appeared mentally fatigued and, more worryingly, someone whose minimalist style of play had been worked out by opponents, who starved him of width outside off-stump. Unable to score prolifically through the V, Strauss appeared a man whose time at international level was up after outstanding initial success. It takes an excellent player to score 10 Test hundreds, clearly; but to recall him based on past successes, totally ignoring his form, is ridiculous.
Since the 3rd Test last summer, Strauss has not been a man reinvigorated by a break from his international career. Rather, his domestic struggles have been painful. Towards the end of the 2007 season, he could barely score a run for his county finishing with an average some 37 runs behind Owais Shah. For Northern Districts in the decidedly modest standard of Kiwi domestic cricket, he hit a century in his final game, but his overall average was 26. What justification did England have for picking him on this tour?
None whatsoever - except he was a 'safe pair of hands' at slip and, more significantly, he possessed a central contract. That was clearly a big mistake. But two wrongs do not make a right. The favoritism borders on the absurd. In England's first tour game, Strauss scored a painstaking 25-ball four, while his rival for a spot in the side - Owais Shah - hit 96. The perpetual fall guy of English cricket, Shah was inexplicably left out for Ravi Bopara in Sri Lanka and faces similarly unjust treatment here.
Because he has become a member of the 'inner circle' and despite the fact that his recent form is atrocious, Strauss will almost certainly play in the first Test. He will bat at three. It is a wise move to allow the Cook-Vaughan partnership to develop, but a bewildering one to play a man out of his normal position when he is in such dire form. Recalling Strauss evokes the blind loyalties of the Duncan Fletcher era, with the implication that reputation counts for more than consistent failings over an 18-month period. It is a selection which totally ignores any convention of picking on merit. What must the best batsman in England, and consummate number three - Mark Ramprakash - be thinking?
Saturday, 23 February 2008
England Ratings
Here is how England's players rated in their disappointing 3-1 series defeat to New Zealand:
Alastair Cook 6
For the second consecutive series, Cook finished as England's top run-scorer. He appears to be going in the right direction as a one-day player but an inability to score a steady stream of singles mean doubts still abound. His 70-ball 42 on the final game bordered on the excruciating; while his 69 in game four, scored at a strike-rate of just 78 despite the perfect batting conditions, was also indicative of his limitations.
Phil Mustard 6
Mustard's 83 in the fourth game showed he has real promise as a pinch hitter - but he too often flatters to deceive, and was out to an aberrant slog in the final game. Encouragingly, his keeping was generally excellent - though, typically amongst English keepers, he disappointed with the gloves after making his top score.
Ian Bell 6
Yet again, the feeling is Bell too often fails to assert himself for an international number three. His 73, before being unjustly given out, was sublime, but he must improve his consistency. At least his strike-rate - 80 in this series - has markedly improved in the last year.
Kevin Pietersen 6
Pietersen's average - 33 - and strike-rate - 73 - were both disappointing. In 20 ODIs since the World Cup, he has averaged just 31 - though they were tentative signs of improvement, England need to work out why.
Paul Collingwood 8
In games three and four, Collingwood played two brilliant innings which should banish, once and for all, the misconception that he is a 'nurdler'. His bowling and captaincy were fairly impressive too.
Owais Shah 4
A very disappointing series, which showed Shah is less-than-comfortable attacking from ball one. His talent is beyond question, however, and it would be well worth giving him the chance to open, as he has for Middlesex.
Ravi Bopara 2
Looked out-of-his depth and desperately bereft of confidence. How much he has been over-hyped for one valiant, but ultimately futile, innings a year ago.
Graeme Swann 2
Unceremoniously discarded after two poor games - though it would never be easy defending such meagre totals - and should have played towards the end of the series, given the excellence of his displays in Sri Lanka.
Stuart Broad 7
Undoubtedly on an upward curve, Broad twice took three wickets in an innings but also suffered from bowling too short at times. But, especially given his batting aptitude - 52 runs for once out in this series - he has established himself as a key member of the limited-overs side.
Ryan Sidebottom 7
Now an indispensable member of the side, Sidebottom is the sole bowler with a full grasp of the virtues of line-and-length. That should not detract from his other qualities, however, and his spell with the old-ball in the fifth game was an example of pacey reverse-swing at its best.
James Anderson 2
Enough is enough. Anderson consistently bowls too many loose deliveries, allowing New Zealand's openers to get off to explosive starts - unacceptable in a side playing only three specialist bowlers. His series stats say it all: four wickets at an average of 67 and an egregious economy of 7.3.
Dimitri Mascarenhas 6
There was a major clamour for his inclusion after his superb Twenty20 performances. 29* of 12 balls in the fifth game illustrated why; but, not benefiting from an apparent lack of confidence from his captain, his 14 overs cost 93. If he cannot consistently deliver 10 overs for 50, even his amazing propensity for clearing the ropes may not be enough to claim a regular spot.
Luke Wright 8
Wright's showing was, in many ways, the most encouraging of any England player. He hit the ball hard and far, scoring 71 in the 47 balls he faced, but his clean-striking suggests a highly encouraging talent - for now, however, he should not be brought back up to open, where he failed ignominiously in the Twenty20 World Cup. And his last over in game four suggests a temperament well-suited to international cricket, and real potential as a fifth bowler.
The Verdict
After twice thrashing New Zealand in the Twenty20 games, this was a humbling series indeed for England. Their batting collapsed pathetically in the first two games, while their policy of including only three front-line bowlers is not sustainable. A more flexible batting order is another area England must work on: too often they lack adaptability in games, though Collingwood's use of Shah with the ball showed they can think on their feet. England's one-day side is considerably better off than when they were humbled by the West Indies - but it is very much work in progress.
Alastair Cook 6
For the second consecutive series, Cook finished as England's top run-scorer. He appears to be going in the right direction as a one-day player but an inability to score a steady stream of singles mean doubts still abound. His 70-ball 42 on the final game bordered on the excruciating; while his 69 in game four, scored at a strike-rate of just 78 despite the perfect batting conditions, was also indicative of his limitations.
Phil Mustard 6
Mustard's 83 in the fourth game showed he has real promise as a pinch hitter - but he too often flatters to deceive, and was out to an aberrant slog in the final game. Encouragingly, his keeping was generally excellent - though, typically amongst English keepers, he disappointed with the gloves after making his top score.
Ian Bell 6
Yet again, the feeling is Bell too often fails to assert himself for an international number three. His 73, before being unjustly given out, was sublime, but he must improve his consistency. At least his strike-rate - 80 in this series - has markedly improved in the last year.
Kevin Pietersen 6
Pietersen's average - 33 - and strike-rate - 73 - were both disappointing. In 20 ODIs since the World Cup, he has averaged just 31 - though they were tentative signs of improvement, England need to work out why.
Paul Collingwood 8
In games three and four, Collingwood played two brilliant innings which should banish, once and for all, the misconception that he is a 'nurdler'. His bowling and captaincy were fairly impressive too.
Owais Shah 4
A very disappointing series, which showed Shah is less-than-comfortable attacking from ball one. His talent is beyond question, however, and it would be well worth giving him the chance to open, as he has for Middlesex.
Ravi Bopara 2
Looked out-of-his depth and desperately bereft of confidence. How much he has been over-hyped for one valiant, but ultimately futile, innings a year ago.
Graeme Swann 2
Unceremoniously discarded after two poor games - though it would never be easy defending such meagre totals - and should have played towards the end of the series, given the excellence of his displays in Sri Lanka.
Stuart Broad 7
Undoubtedly on an upward curve, Broad twice took three wickets in an innings but also suffered from bowling too short at times. But, especially given his batting aptitude - 52 runs for once out in this series - he has established himself as a key member of the limited-overs side.
Ryan Sidebottom 7
Now an indispensable member of the side, Sidebottom is the sole bowler with a full grasp of the virtues of line-and-length. That should not detract from his other qualities, however, and his spell with the old-ball in the fifth game was an example of pacey reverse-swing at its best.
James Anderson 2
Enough is enough. Anderson consistently bowls too many loose deliveries, allowing New Zealand's openers to get off to explosive starts - unacceptable in a side playing only three specialist bowlers. His series stats say it all: four wickets at an average of 67 and an egregious economy of 7.3.
Dimitri Mascarenhas 6
There was a major clamour for his inclusion after his superb Twenty20 performances. 29* of 12 balls in the fifth game illustrated why; but, not benefiting from an apparent lack of confidence from his captain, his 14 overs cost 93. If he cannot consistently deliver 10 overs for 50, even his amazing propensity for clearing the ropes may not be enough to claim a regular spot.
Luke Wright 8
Wright's showing was, in many ways, the most encouraging of any England player. He hit the ball hard and far, scoring 71 in the 47 balls he faced, but his clean-striking suggests a highly encouraging talent - for now, however, he should not be brought back up to open, where he failed ignominiously in the Twenty20 World Cup. And his last over in game four suggests a temperament well-suited to international cricket, and real potential as a fifth bowler.
The Verdict
After twice thrashing New Zealand in the Twenty20 games, this was a humbling series indeed for England. Their batting collapsed pathetically in the first two games, while their policy of including only three front-line bowlers is not sustainable. A more flexible batting order is another area England must work on: too often they lack adaptability in games, though Collingwood's use of Shah with the ball showed they can think on their feet. England's one-day side is considerably better off than when they were humbled by the West Indies - but it is very much work in progress.
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Anderson's struggles continue
Away from the sheer madness of the Indian Premier League, there was quite a game of cricket played between England and New Zealand. Most pundits thought 340 was well out of the Kiwis’ reach; but they reckoned without some mediocre bowling, the short boundaries and some exhilarating batting. For all their problems, especially in the Test arena, New Zealand remain a combative and canny one-day international side. With that in mind, England would be ecstatic if they could salvage a draw from this series.
To do that, they will need to build on their batting exploits. At last, England managed an assertive start. Phil Mustard displayed hitting power and hitherto unimagined subtlety and selectivity in his 83, amassing 158 with Alastair Cook. Cook is undeniably growing as a limited-overs player. However, he still has a long way to go to succeed in emulating Matthew Hayden. With hindsight, his excruciating start – two runs from 17 balls, during which he was dropped – may have cost England the match. Tellingly, England scored an astonishing 227 from the 30 non-Powerplay overs, but only managed a relatively meagre 113 during the 20 overs of Powerplays. Cook’s strike-rate of 78 would be good on most wickets; but not so on the short boundaries of Napier. Still, the opening partnership of Mustard and Cook, two contrasting left-handers, is one that should be persevered with.
Unlike on numerous occasions in the past, England capitalised in the last 10 overs, adding over a century. Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen and especially Paul Collingwood appear in fine form after failures in the first two games, while Luke Wright bludgeoned quick runs before showing an ice-cool temperament with a brilliant final over of the game.
More worrying is the oft-unfairly treated Owais Shah. His best innings for England, including his 107 against India and 82 at Dambulla, came when given the chance to play a substantial innings before accelerating at the end. He struggled under the requirement of hitting from ball one, suggesting others should be promoted ahead of him in similar situations but, as a supremely talented player who can accumulate and find the gaps with his wristy style, Shah should not be discarded.
With the ball, however, England’s shortcomings were exposed. Besides the exemplary Ryan Sidebottom, bowlers consistently bowled too short. James Anderson is 25 and has played 85 ODIs, but his control is too often found wanting. Given that he has averaged 56, with an economy rate of 5.6, during his last nine games, Anderson needs to impress in the series finale – or he should be dropped.
But what of Dimi Mascharenhas? After two scintillating performances in the two Twenty20 games, there was a clamour for him to be included in the ODI side too. But he has failed to justify the hype, bowling nine overs for 69, seemingly lacking the confidence of Collingwood, and not being given the chance to show-off his six-hitting power. In the right conditions, both his bowling and batting could be of great use. Yet in the last two games, having dropped Graeme Swann, England have been left with just three front-line bowlers, and have subsequently been over-exposed.
But after the humiliations of the first two games, it is testament to England's resilience that they can still harbour hopes of sharing the series.
Friday, 15 February 2008
Captain Colly shows the way
Paul Collingwood's side have rightly been lambasted for a pair of aberrant performances in this ODI series. But it is to his great credit that he led by example in the third game, claiming three wickets and scoring a rapid 70* to put England back on the right track.
Collingwood's pride has palpably been damaged by the first two games. Under his captaincy, the impression that England do not care for one-day cricket has gradually been eroded, as anyone who witnessed the jubilant celebrations upon winning the series in Sri Lanka would conform. Apathy has been a major problem for England in this format; too often, they have been blown away in series that have followed the Tests, with the players all seemingly longing for a return home. That is no longer the case, for Collingwood has made it his mission to make England a respected one-day outfit once more.
His performance today illustrated the good cricketing sense he has come to be associated with. His bowling in this format of the game continues to improve; canny and with plenty of guile, his brand of cutters and slower balls are well-accustomed to Kiwi wickets. With the bat, he was audacious and a little lucky but superb: his 70* from only 50 balls made a nervy run chase into a cakewalk, as he ruthlessly targeted New Zealand's band of medium-pacers after seeing off the brilliant Daniel Vettori.
While they have regained some respectability, it would still represent a major surprise if England produce two more similarly impressive showings. Clearly, they need Phil Mustard to make a significant contribution at the top; breezy cameos are not enough. But, at last, their much-vaunted middle-order lived up to the hype, with Ian Bell playing a fine innings and Kevin Pietersen, though far from his best, making a timely contribution. Collingwood's combativeness evoked the tenacity and skill he displayed in the incredible CB Series win last year. After their thrashings in the first two games, a turnaround England series victory would come close to that for shock value.
Collingwood's pride has palpably been damaged by the first two games. Under his captaincy, the impression that England do not care for one-day cricket has gradually been eroded, as anyone who witnessed the jubilant celebrations upon winning the series in Sri Lanka would conform. Apathy has been a major problem for England in this format; too often, they have been blown away in series that have followed the Tests, with the players all seemingly longing for a return home. That is no longer the case, for Collingwood has made it his mission to make England a respected one-day outfit once more.
His performance today illustrated the good cricketing sense he has come to be associated with. His bowling in this format of the game continues to improve; canny and with plenty of guile, his brand of cutters and slower balls are well-accustomed to Kiwi wickets. With the bat, he was audacious and a little lucky but superb: his 70* from only 50 balls made a nervy run chase into a cakewalk, as he ruthlessly targeted New Zealand's band of medium-pacers after seeing off the brilliant Daniel Vettori.
While they have regained some respectability, it would still represent a major surprise if England produce two more similarly impressive showings. Clearly, they need Phil Mustard to make a significant contribution at the top; breezy cameos are not enough. But, at last, their much-vaunted middle-order lived up to the hype, with Ian Bell playing a fine innings and Kevin Pietersen, though far from his best, making a timely contribution. Collingwood's combativeness evoked the tenacity and skill he displayed in the incredible CB Series win last year. After their thrashings in the first two games, a turnaround England series victory would come close to that for shock value.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Abject England, as weak as water
Having won the first four matches of their tour to New Zealand, England were expected to dominate the ODI series much in the same way as they had done the 20/20 match-ups. However, New Zealand hadn't read the script and have since demolished England in the first two ODIs.
Fans would have been hoping that the abysmal showing of Saturday had merely been a blip on the radar for this young and promising outfit. It was infact nothing, compared to the apocalyptic debacle witnessed at Seddon Park this morning.
Captain Collingwood lost the toss and England were put into bat by New Zealand skipper Daniel Vettori. A few minutes later, Alastair Cook and Phil Mustard made their way to the block to try and make amends for their failings first time around.
For six overs everything seemed to be going according to plan. The batsmen gauged the pace and bounce of the pitch much better and made an aggressive start. However, as he does too often Mustard went for one shot too many and was caught out when he could easily have played the ball along the ground through cover. With experience, Mustard is likely to cut these mistakes out of his game. Next ball, the under-pressure Ian Bell, fell for a golden duck due to an exceptional catch by keeper McCullum. Next in was Pietersen and together with Cook, they seemed to steady the ship. The pair were still at the crease when rain curtailed play for over 2 hours.
Upon the resumption of play, England fell apart. Daft shots and ridiculous run outs caused England to collapse from 90-2 to 158 all out. No dismissal was more farcical than that of Alastair Cook.
Ravi Bopara decided it would be a great idea to hit the ball straight to New Zealand's best fielder (Ross Taylor) and set off for a suicide single. Being the team player that he is, Cook tried to rescue the exigent situation and did his best to scamper up the pitch and try to prevent the loss of another England wicket. He was run out by a mile.
To make matters worse, Bopara played a painstaking innings from there on in and subsequently threw his wicket away. People will very quickly get annoyed with this laissez faire approach and the distinct lack of a sensible thought process.
On the other hand, Alastair Cook again played superbly for his innings of 53. Some would argue that he should have stood his ground and allowed Bopara to be run out. With more experience, he probably would have done so. However, he was completely innocent in his dismissal and one would only hope that Bopara later apologized for denying him a big innings. One can not be sure as to how many Cook would have gone on to make as the rest of the team hardly stuck around. However, had he stayed England's score might well have been upwards of 200; a much greater challenge under the constraints of Duckworth Lewis.
It is good to see that Cook is getting a fair run at the top of the order. He is a good complimenting opener to Mustard as he allows his colleague to take on the bowling. Despite missing out on the 20/20 matches, Cook has put in three very good performances so far on this tour and slowly his class seems to be showing through in the one-day arena. It is little wonder that he is being touted as the FEC. The man is only 23 years of age; yet he is playing with a humility and percipience that is frankly putting his senior counterparts to shame.
New Zealand's openers, McCullum and Ryder, showed no mercy whatsoever in their attempt at chasing down the inadequate total set by the opposition. England bowled very badly and the two batsmen slaughtered the bowling to take New Zealand past the winning post of 165 with 107 balls remaining. England had chances but wasted them; dropping McCullum on 0 and Ryder on 8. They finished on 80 and 79 respectively. Even so, England got what they deserved.
With the next game on Friday in Auckland, it is very hard to see how England are going to be able to pick themselves up in time. A plus for the visitors is that things really can't get much worse. Collingwood seemed keen on keeping an unchanged team for this match but after today's result, changes seem inevitable. Bell and Bopara both seem to be in torrid form and the only players who would be likely to come in for them are Luke Wright and Dimitri Mascarenhas. This would leave a probable batting order like so:
1. Alastair Cook
2. Phil Mustard (WK)
3. Kevin Pietersen
4. Paul Collingwood (Capt.)
5. Owais Shah
6. Dimitri Mascarehnas
7. Luke Wright
8. Greame Swann
9. Stuart Broad
10. Ryan Sidebottom
11. James Anderson
It is the opinion of many that Pietersen should bat at three because he is clearly England's best batsman. He should therefore be exposed to as much of the bowling as possible. On his day, Collingwood is most probably the side's second best one-day batsman, hence making him the obvious choice to be England's number four. Dimi Mascarehnas and Luke Wright both played well during the 20/20 series and would add a much needed impetus to the middle order.
England have talent, there is no doubt about that. They showed that they were made of sterner stuff during the 20/20s; yet their sudden loss of confidence is making them as weak as the rain water that disrupted play in Hamilton today. A promising, young and at times, exciting team they may be. It just seems at the moment, many of those promises are rather hollow.
Fans would have been hoping that the abysmal showing of Saturday had merely been a blip on the radar for this young and promising outfit. It was infact nothing, compared to the apocalyptic debacle witnessed at Seddon Park this morning.
Captain Collingwood lost the toss and England were put into bat by New Zealand skipper Daniel Vettori. A few minutes later, Alastair Cook and Phil Mustard made their way to the block to try and make amends for their failings first time around.
For six overs everything seemed to be going according to plan. The batsmen gauged the pace and bounce of the pitch much better and made an aggressive start. However, as he does too often Mustard went for one shot too many and was caught out when he could easily have played the ball along the ground through cover. With experience, Mustard is likely to cut these mistakes out of his game. Next ball, the under-pressure Ian Bell, fell for a golden duck due to an exceptional catch by keeper McCullum. Next in was Pietersen and together with Cook, they seemed to steady the ship. The pair were still at the crease when rain curtailed play for over 2 hours.
Upon the resumption of play, England fell apart. Daft shots and ridiculous run outs caused England to collapse from 90-2 to 158 all out. No dismissal was more farcical than that of Alastair Cook.
Ravi Bopara decided it would be a great idea to hit the ball straight to New Zealand's best fielder (Ross Taylor) and set off for a suicide single. Being the team player that he is, Cook tried to rescue the exigent situation and did his best to scamper up the pitch and try to prevent the loss of another England wicket. He was run out by a mile.
To make matters worse, Bopara played a painstaking innings from there on in and subsequently threw his wicket away. People will very quickly get annoyed with this laissez faire approach and the distinct lack of a sensible thought process.
On the other hand, Alastair Cook again played superbly for his innings of 53. Some would argue that he should have stood his ground and allowed Bopara to be run out. With more experience, he probably would have done so. However, he was completely innocent in his dismissal and one would only hope that Bopara later apologized for denying him a big innings. One can not be sure as to how many Cook would have gone on to make as the rest of the team hardly stuck around. However, had he stayed England's score might well have been upwards of 200; a much greater challenge under the constraints of Duckworth Lewis.
It is good to see that Cook is getting a fair run at the top of the order. He is a good complimenting opener to Mustard as he allows his colleague to take on the bowling. Despite missing out on the 20/20 matches, Cook has put in three very good performances so far on this tour and slowly his class seems to be showing through in the one-day arena. It is little wonder that he is being touted as the FEC. The man is only 23 years of age; yet he is playing with a humility and percipience that is frankly putting his senior counterparts to shame.
New Zealand's openers, McCullum and Ryder, showed no mercy whatsoever in their attempt at chasing down the inadequate total set by the opposition. England bowled very badly and the two batsmen slaughtered the bowling to take New Zealand past the winning post of 165 with 107 balls remaining. England had chances but wasted them; dropping McCullum on 0 and Ryder on 8. They finished on 80 and 79 respectively. Even so, England got what they deserved.
With the next game on Friday in Auckland, it is very hard to see how England are going to be able to pick themselves up in time. A plus for the visitors is that things really can't get much worse. Collingwood seemed keen on keeping an unchanged team for this match but after today's result, changes seem inevitable. Bell and Bopara both seem to be in torrid form and the only players who would be likely to come in for them are Luke Wright and Dimitri Mascarenhas. This would leave a probable batting order like so:
1. Alastair Cook
2. Phil Mustard (WK)
3. Kevin Pietersen
4. Paul Collingwood (Capt.)
5. Owais Shah
6. Dimitri Mascarehnas
7. Luke Wright
8. Greame Swann
9. Stuart Broad
10. Ryan Sidebottom
11. James Anderson
It is the opinion of many that Pietersen should bat at three because he is clearly England's best batsman. He should therefore be exposed to as much of the bowling as possible. On his day, Collingwood is most probably the side's second best one-day batsman, hence making him the obvious choice to be England's number four. Dimi Mascarehnas and Luke Wright both played well during the 20/20 series and would add a much needed impetus to the middle order.
England have talent, there is no doubt about that. They showed that they were made of sterner stuff during the 20/20s; yet their sudden loss of confidence is making them as weak as the rain water that disrupted play in Hamilton today. A promising, young and at times, exciting team they may be. It just seems at the moment, many of those promises are rather hollow.
Feeble England make Mascarenhas into a demi-God
The first thrashing was unexpected but far from shocking: England began their ODI tour of Sri Lanka with a similar shocker, and still won the series. Today's 10-wicket humbling, however, was something else. It is amazing how a side who recorded two consecutive series victories can appear so inadequate and hopeless, lacking in the most basic cricketing skills. For all the talk of England's revival as a one-day side under Paul Collingwood, which seemed palpable only four days ago, there are deep problems with the side.
Phil Mustard is still yet to pass 30 in seven ODI innings, but there are some signs of encouragement in his opening partnership with the contrasting Alastair Cook; 41 in 5.5 overs today is the sort of opening stand England too seldom enjoy. Patently, the problems exist beneath them, in the middle-order previously regarded as one of England's strengths.
With 420 runs at an average of 70 and strike-rate of 90 in the series with India, Ian Bell appeared to be maturing into a very fine one-day number three, capable of dictating the tempo of England's innings and possessing new-found assertiveness. Well, rubbish to all that. Bell has not reached 50 in 11 ODIs (plus two Twenty20 games) and seemingly lacks a coherent gameplan. So much time has been invested in him; and he has promised so much. There is no conceivable alternative at number three for the remainder of this series; but, if he cannot avert his slump with some intelligently constructed knocks soon, he will have to be replaced. Credible alternatives are dificult to find, however.
Kevin Pietersen, once the best one-day international batsman in the world, is undeniably facing the first major slump of his career. He is losing some of his aura following a poor run, as he has succumbed to opposition plans and, on occasions, the fallibility of his concentration. England need him back to his best soon; Pietersen must pay the opposition the respect they deserve and there were fleeting signs of that today. Owais Shah, meanwhile, is still a man who offers much to the side even if he was guilty of serious misjudgements between the wickets in the first game. It would be hard to say the same for Ravi Bopara, however. Over-hyped following a fine innings in the World Cup in which he nonetheless faltered when it mattered most, he has only made one contribution of note since and, following a nightmarish debut Test series, both his technique and mind would clearly benefit from a break.
Replacing him must be Dimi Mascarenhas, who should never have been dropped following the Twenty20s, as many others have said. He is becoming a better player with every game he misses, though, and he will not solve England's ODI problems at a stroke. It is hard to overly judge the bowling after the limp batting displays, but James Anderson, whose control of line and length is astoundingly unreliable, should perhaps be replaced with Chris Tremlett, even if there would be a feeling of 'change for change's sake'.
What is undeniable is England have been utterly inept in their opening two games. Their batting is bereft of a discernible game-plan, too prone to brainless run-outs and collapses, simultaneously lacking assertiveness and caution. Give or take the odd selection, this is more-or-less the best side England have. That is perhaps most worrying of all.
Phil Mustard is still yet to pass 30 in seven ODI innings, but there are some signs of encouragement in his opening partnership with the contrasting Alastair Cook; 41 in 5.5 overs today is the sort of opening stand England too seldom enjoy. Patently, the problems exist beneath them, in the middle-order previously regarded as one of England's strengths.
With 420 runs at an average of 70 and strike-rate of 90 in the series with India, Ian Bell appeared to be maturing into a very fine one-day number three, capable of dictating the tempo of England's innings and possessing new-found assertiveness. Well, rubbish to all that. Bell has not reached 50 in 11 ODIs (plus two Twenty20 games) and seemingly lacks a coherent gameplan. So much time has been invested in him; and he has promised so much. There is no conceivable alternative at number three for the remainder of this series; but, if he cannot avert his slump with some intelligently constructed knocks soon, he will have to be replaced. Credible alternatives are dificult to find, however.
Kevin Pietersen, once the best one-day international batsman in the world, is undeniably facing the first major slump of his career. He is losing some of his aura following a poor run, as he has succumbed to opposition plans and, on occasions, the fallibility of his concentration. England need him back to his best soon; Pietersen must pay the opposition the respect they deserve and there were fleeting signs of that today. Owais Shah, meanwhile, is still a man who offers much to the side even if he was guilty of serious misjudgements between the wickets in the first game. It would be hard to say the same for Ravi Bopara, however. Over-hyped following a fine innings in the World Cup in which he nonetheless faltered when it mattered most, he has only made one contribution of note since and, following a nightmarish debut Test series, both his technique and mind would clearly benefit from a break.
Replacing him must be Dimi Mascarenhas, who should never have been dropped following the Twenty20s, as many others have said. He is becoming a better player with every game he misses, though, and he will not solve England's ODI problems at a stroke. It is hard to overly judge the bowling after the limp batting displays, but James Anderson, whose control of line and length is astoundingly unreliable, should perhaps be replaced with Chris Tremlett, even if there would be a feeling of 'change for change's sake'.
What is undeniable is England have been utterly inept in their opening two games. Their batting is bereft of a discernible game-plan, too prone to brainless run-outs and collapses, simultaneously lacking assertiveness and caution. Give or take the odd selection, this is more-or-less the best side England have. That is perhaps most worrying of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)