So there will be no fairytale Ashes comeback for Michael Vaughan. His retirement has looked increasingly likely this season, his poor batting form – 159 first class runs at 19.88 – combining with Ravi Bopara’s excellence in the England number three spot to suggest there was little chance of an international recall.
Vaughan’s decision to pack away his bat for good has still come as a surprise to some, most notably the England selectors. Their decision to hand the former skipper a central contract this season meant they hoped he would one day return, with his bygone glories in the Test arena always an allure.
It is this Michael Vaughan that England fans will want to remember, not the uncertain, drained figure who scored 40 runs from his last five Test innings. That final, disappointing series against South Africa last year was why we wanted him to return: to have the opportunity to show why he once was the best batsman in the world.
Vaughan’s golden years of 2002 and 2003, when he scored seven centuries in 20 innings, all against the three best teams in the world, would represent an excellent career in their own right. His excellent, record-breaking captaincy elevates Vaughan’s England career to one of the very best.
He led England to more Test victories than anyone else, recording 26 wins from 51 matches as skipper, losing just 11. Reclaiming the Ashes in 2005 was one of England’s great sporting moments and every England fan knows the size of Vaughan’s contribution. However, as with all great players, it is the manner of the achievements that are significant, not just the facts and figures themselves.
We remember the silky cover drive and effortless pull shot more than the 18 Test centuries, one more than Denis Compton recorded. His captaincy made England tougher and harder to beat than they ever had been. He commanded respect from his players, opponents and commentators and always exuded the calmness that characterised his batting.
England might win the Ashes this year, but if they don’t it will reinforce the sense that Vaughan’s historic triumph in 2005, the defining moment of a fine career, was even more special than it appeared at the time.
In the meantime, make sure you stay up to date with the Ashes odds before making an informed First Test bet and, if you want to get in the betting mood, check out Betfair's fanvfan site.
Showing posts with label Michael Vaughan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Vaughan. Show all posts
Monday, 29 June 2009
Monday, 22 June 2009
Musings on the first Ashes squads
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.
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.
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?
Sunday, 3 August 2008
Rob Key: next England captain
Well, well. After fumbling along for so long with faults prevalent but the cosy set-up in denial about these, there is finally a shake-up within the England side. Michael Vaughan, who won more Tests than any other captain, has resigned; Paul Collingwood has seemingly been pushed from the one-day set-up.
There are two obvious candidates to replace them. Kevin Pietersen is well established as a star in both forms of the game for England. Captaincy could help rein in his impetuosity, which reared its ugly head when trying to launch Paul Harris for a six to bring up his century. During the last one-day international, when he was stand-in captain, his choice of bowlers seemed a little less formulaic than Collingwood's has been. He clearly has a fine cricketing brain and under-rated tactical acuman. Making your best player captain is, in many senses, the most logical step. However, he still has a worrying lack of captaincy experience - doubts exist over his ability to handle disparate characters within the side.
There may be calls for Andrew Strauss to be handed the job on the basis that he should have led England to Australia in 2006/07. But that is no sound reason. His current form is grim and he has scored hundreds only against New Zealand in the last two years. Add to this that he is not in the ODI side and it is clear England must look elsewhere, for all his captaincy credentials.
But where? The next England skipper should be Rob Key. He has led Kent with distinction for almost three seasons, winning the Twenty20 Cup last season. This year, they were one shot away from retaining the trophy; they will play Essex in the Friends Provident Trophy final; and they still have a very realistic chance of Champuionship glory. At 29, he has developed tremendous cricketing nous and commands respect. Key is a phlegmatic character, outwardly relaxed but alo fiercely determined. His status as an 'outsider' - he has not played for three and-a-half years - is surely a benefit, given the deep malaise England currently find themselves in. New ideas, which have clearly been very successful at Kent, could reinvigorate the side.
But what of Key the batsman? For a captain's authority is undermined if there are doubts over whether he merits his place in the side, as Vaughan is striking testament to. Key did reasonbly in his 15 Tests, but is a better player now, who knows how to get the best out of himself - and has also lost plenty of weight. Though not outstanding, he is having another good season, averaging 51 in first-class cricket (it was 56 last season), including 178* for Kent against New Zealand. Given the batting woes of the top three, he fully merits a recall even if his captaincy skills are ignored. Whilst it is true he was out-of-his-depth in his brief ODI career to date, his limited-overs game has developed wonderfully of late, as he has learned the art of pacing innings - and even developed a paddle over fine-leg. So he merits a place in all three forms of the game on current form. Add in his know-how and captaincy pedigree and Rob Key stands out as England's best choice.
There are two obvious candidates to replace them. Kevin Pietersen is well established as a star in both forms of the game for England. Captaincy could help rein in his impetuosity, which reared its ugly head when trying to launch Paul Harris for a six to bring up his century. During the last one-day international, when he was stand-in captain, his choice of bowlers seemed a little less formulaic than Collingwood's has been. He clearly has a fine cricketing brain and under-rated tactical acuman. Making your best player captain is, in many senses, the most logical step. However, he still has a worrying lack of captaincy experience - doubts exist over his ability to handle disparate characters within the side.
There may be calls for Andrew Strauss to be handed the job on the basis that he should have led England to Australia in 2006/07. But that is no sound reason. His current form is grim and he has scored hundreds only against New Zealand in the last two years. Add to this that he is not in the ODI side and it is clear England must look elsewhere, for all his captaincy credentials.
But where? The next England skipper should be Rob Key. He has led Kent with distinction for almost three seasons, winning the Twenty20 Cup last season. This year, they were one shot away from retaining the trophy; they will play Essex in the Friends Provident Trophy final; and they still have a very realistic chance of Champuionship glory. At 29, he has developed tremendous cricketing nous and commands respect. Key is a phlegmatic character, outwardly relaxed but alo fiercely determined. His status as an 'outsider' - he has not played for three and-a-half years - is surely a benefit, given the deep malaise England currently find themselves in. New ideas, which have clearly been very successful at Kent, could reinvigorate the side.
But what of Key the batsman? For a captain's authority is undermined if there are doubts over whether he merits his place in the side, as Vaughan is striking testament to. Key did reasonbly in his 15 Tests, but is a better player now, who knows how to get the best out of himself - and has also lost plenty of weight. Though not outstanding, he is having another good season, averaging 51 in first-class cricket (it was 56 last season), including 178* for Kent against New Zealand. Given the batting woes of the top three, he fully merits a recall even if his captaincy skills are ignored. Whilst it is true he was out-of-his-depth in his brief ODI career to date, his limited-overs game has developed wonderfully of late, as he has learned the art of pacing innings - and even developed a paddle over fine-leg. So he merits a place in all three forms of the game on current form. Add in his know-how and captaincy pedigree and Rob Key stands out as England's best choice.
Friday, 1 August 2008
England rebel against the Eighties
For those of us who grew up with cricket in the 1980s, the current state of consistency in the England selection is a massive sea change. The 1988 series against West Indies saw 23 players and four captains used in a five match series, with a further 5 players in the team for the one off match against Sri Lanka. To put that into context, if you took the last 28 players to debut for England, you would be back to Rob Key’s debut in 2002 and include players such as Antony McGrath, Ed Smith and Richard Johnson, who have long left the international reckoning. From 1980 to 1988, 50 players made their debut for England. Since 2000, the number of debutants has been 39, despite the increasing demands on players
While 1988 was the nadir in terms of selection, even in 1986, 19 players were used in a three test series against India and 17 in the subsequent three match series against New Zealand. Even in the successful Ashes series in 1985, 17 players were used – a far cry from the twelve players used 20 years later. Indeed in 2001, 19 players were used as the side continued to struggle against the Australians.
One of the benefits that the central contracts have brought England is a consistency of selection. Players don’t need to fear a single poor score and the Team England ethic is very strong. Players become comfortable with who they are playing with and used to their roles within the team, on and off the pitch. However, there needs to be evolution with the selection and it was also revealing in comparing the teams for the first test against South Africa that only Andrew Strauss had played in the corresponding fixture four years ago, in the game that he made his debut. Therefore, while England have enjoyed a stable team, it has evolved into a new unit over the past four years.
There has been criticism of this becoming a cosy club. However, the benefits of consistency have been seen with Strauss, who has now formed a stable opening partnership with Ali Cook, even if they now both need to convert their starts into big scores. Ian Bell was under pressure for his place at the start of the series, but was given the opportunity to respond with his innings at Lords which took England from a precarious situation to a potential match-winning one. James Anderson is another player who is now benefitting from a run in the team.
The weakness with this system is that players can last for too long in the setup. But for Marcus Trescothick’s well publicised problems, he could well be keeping Cook out of the team. Previous incumbents of the top six have either retired at the top (Hussein, Thorpe) or had injuries that have taken them out of the team (Butcher). The current form of Michael Vaughan and in particular Paul Collingwood should possibly see them left out of the team. However, this should not be done in a way that leads back to the bad old days of the 1980s. Owais Shah, Ravi Bopara and Rob Key all remain within the England setup, either as the next players in, or as the current Lions captain. England have had success by evolution, not revolution and the long term importance of a settled, but not complacent team is paramount.
While 1988 was the nadir in terms of selection, even in 1986, 19 players were used in a three test series against India and 17 in the subsequent three match series against New Zealand. Even in the successful Ashes series in 1985, 17 players were used – a far cry from the twelve players used 20 years later. Indeed in 2001, 19 players were used as the side continued to struggle against the Australians.
One of the benefits that the central contracts have brought England is a consistency of selection. Players don’t need to fear a single poor score and the Team England ethic is very strong. Players become comfortable with who they are playing with and used to their roles within the team, on and off the pitch. However, there needs to be evolution with the selection and it was also revealing in comparing the teams for the first test against South Africa that only Andrew Strauss had played in the corresponding fixture four years ago, in the game that he made his debut. Therefore, while England have enjoyed a stable team, it has evolved into a new unit over the past four years.
There has been criticism of this becoming a cosy club. However, the benefits of consistency have been seen with Strauss, who has now formed a stable opening partnership with Ali Cook, even if they now both need to convert their starts into big scores. Ian Bell was under pressure for his place at the start of the series, but was given the opportunity to respond with his innings at Lords which took England from a precarious situation to a potential match-winning one. James Anderson is another player who is now benefitting from a run in the team.
The weakness with this system is that players can last for too long in the setup. But for Marcus Trescothick’s well publicised problems, he could well be keeping Cook out of the team. Previous incumbents of the top six have either retired at the top (Hussein, Thorpe) or had injuries that have taken them out of the team (Butcher). The current form of Michael Vaughan and in particular Paul Collingwood should possibly see them left out of the team. However, this should not be done in a way that leads back to the bad old days of the 1980s. Owais Shah, Ravi Bopara and Rob Key all remain within the England setup, either as the next players in, or as the current Lions captain. England have had success by evolution, not revolution and the long term importance of a settled, but not complacent team is paramount.
Shambolic England On The Brink
Mickey Arthur this week denounced the recall of Steve Harmison as a desperate and short term move by England which took no account of the upcoming 2009 Ashes series. He was right. Michael Atherton tore into the selectors both in general and specifically for recalling Harmison in The Times, stating that they were sending out the wrong message about selection. He was right. Harmison would have been a temporary and short sighted pick. He is bowling well at present and would undoubtedly take wickets, but he doesn’t play ODI’s, he doesn’t travel as every Tom, Dick and Harry knows and he takes a good few matches to get into form, largely because he doesn’t put in the training which other players do. So that would make him available for the second Test series of every summer which just is not viable.
Meanwhile, “The Michael Vaughan Batting Club”, to quote a friend, seems now to be more exclusive and cosy than ever, when it’s hegemony should be in the process of being disrupted. To the untrained eye it appears as though England have imploded in a relatively short period of time. However, look a little closer and the problems have been mounting for a year. The series loss to India was unfortunate, but signalled the start of the latest period of turmoil. The embarrassing performance in Sri Lanka hit the side hard and many a mistake was made. Owais Shah, one of England’s best players of spin and slow, low pitches was bafflingly left out of the side so as to accommodate Ravi Bopara, who proceeded to have one of the worst debuts by an England Test player. And following a series of drops, Matt Prior himself was dropped, which saw Tim Ambrose take over the gloves, another compromise between keeping and batting ability was made.
To New Zealand and one poor match spelled the end for Matthew Hoggard, whilst Steve Harmison finally got what had been coming his way for the previous two years. Team England escaped with a 2-1 series win, but they had been expected to thrash the Kiwis. Tim Ambrose and Paul Collingwood looked good and Andrew Strauss appeared to be back to his best. However, the fact that the Kiwis are a very limited side was completely forgotten. On to the home series against New Zealand and England faced an even more limited side, eventually triumphing 2-0. However, they deserved to lose the second Test after yet more woeful batting and despite a Michael Vaughan revival (currently expected in 1 in 4 series). A good side would have thrashed the Kiwis twice.
Then South Africa arrived and on a placid pitch England racked up the runs, but the ease with which South Africa avoided defeat showed that the pitch had played a major role. The key point was also that only Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen made big runs. The bowling attack meanwhile lacked hostility and pace. Whilst swing may account for average batsman, good batsmen need to be tested with pace and bounce. Andrew Flintoff’s return has been claimed to have unbalanced the side. That is simply not true. He has kept this England side in the hunt and given them drive which was sorely lacking. Ultimately, the sad truth is that England are playing a very good side, a testing side and they are realising that they are just not good enough.
Alistair Cook last scored a ton ten Tests ago, but at least he has averaged 40.00 since November 2007. Vaughan is averaging 27.52 since the start of the Sri Lanka tour, with 1 hundred in 23 innings. Collingwood averages 28.25 in the same period with no hundreds in 18 innings. And Tim Ambrose’s average in down to 26.76 as it continues it’s descent. England can not afford to keep on carrying players, but that is exactly what they continue to do. The term “Michael Vaughan Batting Club” is of course meant to be comical, but it sums up this current England side perfectly. Vaughan has always been staunchly loyal to his charges and this was once a virtue, in the days after the brutally honest regime of Nasser Hussain, but it has now most certainly become a problem, with judgement now blurred by loyalty.
Andrew Strauss was out of form for an age before he was finally dropped and then recalled without hitting a single run in county cricket. Paul Collingwood was dropped for one match before being recalled for the current Test in place of Stuart Broad. The reasoning behind this seemed stupid at the start and even stupider now. Stuart Broad needed a rest, yet is playing a four day game for Nottinghamshire. The extra batsman would balance the side, yet they essentially replaced a cricketer who has averaged 55 this year with one who has averaged 8. Are the fans missing something here? The end result was obvious for everyone to see even before Collingwood had gone out to bat and once he was there it was even more painfully obvious, no less so than to Collingwood himself, whose torturous 45 minute innings was packed full of nerves and completely devoid of any semblance of confidence. His lack of confidence seems even to be effecting his fielding, as he dropped a relatively easy catch off of Neil McKenzie later on.
England need a reality check and now. They will lose this series, that is all but a certainty, barring a Flintoff inspired miracle and changes to the team. Even worse though, they will slip to 4th in the world and are likely to be humiliated in India and at home by Australia if they do not do what is necessary and change the batting line-up. If it means changing the captain then so be it. Players can only live on past glories for so long and Geoffrey Boycott is not alone in seeing Vaughan as a cricketer who is far from the man who peaked in Australia in 2002. It isn’t as if he excels for Yorkshire either and one good score every other series simply isn’t enough. Who comes in for Vaughan and Collingwood is up for debate, but the leading candidates are Ravi Bopara and Owais Shah, whilst the likes of Rob Key and Joe Denly will be watching the latest troubles of Cook and Strauss with great interest. The captaincy would have to pass to either a younger player, or the more experienced Andrew Strauss, who is statistically proven to improve his run output as captain, averaging around 15 runs more as captain for Middlesex and England (55.66). Vaughan incidentally averages 5.62 runs less as captain (36.02).
On the wicket keeping front it is probably time to go with the best keeper in the country, who in my opinion is James Foster. He will also fit nicely into the ODI side, allowing England to keep consistency of selection which they see as being crucial. If Broad has been returned to county cricket to work on his bowling then playing four bowlers becomes an easier task for England, with the current incumbents the most deserving, although Broad and Simon Jones would be pushing the likes of Bopara and Sidebottom hard for their places in the near future. It is worth noting that at the moment Broad and Jones could only play in a five man attack. Perhaps if the batting line-up could deliver the runs then five bowlers would once again be a viable option. For the moment though it is not.
England Test Batting Averages since November 2007:
Strauss 45.07
Cook 40.00
Vaughan 27.52
Pietersen 41.31
Bell 46.66
Collingwood 28.25
Ambrose 26.75
Broad 41.22
Flintoff 45.5 (3 innings, 1 not out)
Bopara 8.40 (5 innings)
Test Debuts Since 2000:
4 Wicket Keeper debuts;
10 Batsman debuts;
22 Bowler debuts;
3 Allrounder debuts.
Test Debuts Since Ashes 2005:
2 Wicket Keeper debuts;
2 Batsman debuts;
9 Bowler debuts;
1 Allrounder debut.
Meanwhile, “The Michael Vaughan Batting Club”, to quote a friend, seems now to be more exclusive and cosy than ever, when it’s hegemony should be in the process of being disrupted. To the untrained eye it appears as though England have imploded in a relatively short period of time. However, look a little closer and the problems have been mounting for a year. The series loss to India was unfortunate, but signalled the start of the latest period of turmoil. The embarrassing performance in Sri Lanka hit the side hard and many a mistake was made. Owais Shah, one of England’s best players of spin and slow, low pitches was bafflingly left out of the side so as to accommodate Ravi Bopara, who proceeded to have one of the worst debuts by an England Test player. And following a series of drops, Matt Prior himself was dropped, which saw Tim Ambrose take over the gloves, another compromise between keeping and batting ability was made.
To New Zealand and one poor match spelled the end for Matthew Hoggard, whilst Steve Harmison finally got what had been coming his way for the previous two years. Team England escaped with a 2-1 series win, but they had been expected to thrash the Kiwis. Tim Ambrose and Paul Collingwood looked good and Andrew Strauss appeared to be back to his best. However, the fact that the Kiwis are a very limited side was completely forgotten. On to the home series against New Zealand and England faced an even more limited side, eventually triumphing 2-0. However, they deserved to lose the second Test after yet more woeful batting and despite a Michael Vaughan revival (currently expected in 1 in 4 series). A good side would have thrashed the Kiwis twice.
Then South Africa arrived and on a placid pitch England racked up the runs, but the ease with which South Africa avoided defeat showed that the pitch had played a major role. The key point was also that only Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen made big runs. The bowling attack meanwhile lacked hostility and pace. Whilst swing may account for average batsman, good batsmen need to be tested with pace and bounce. Andrew Flintoff’s return has been claimed to have unbalanced the side. That is simply not true. He has kept this England side in the hunt and given them drive which was sorely lacking. Ultimately, the sad truth is that England are playing a very good side, a testing side and they are realising that they are just not good enough.
Alistair Cook last scored a ton ten Tests ago, but at least he has averaged 40.00 since November 2007. Vaughan is averaging 27.52 since the start of the Sri Lanka tour, with 1 hundred in 23 innings. Collingwood averages 28.25 in the same period with no hundreds in 18 innings. And Tim Ambrose’s average in down to 26.76 as it continues it’s descent. England can not afford to keep on carrying players, but that is exactly what they continue to do. The term “Michael Vaughan Batting Club” is of course meant to be comical, but it sums up this current England side perfectly. Vaughan has always been staunchly loyal to his charges and this was once a virtue, in the days after the brutally honest regime of Nasser Hussain, but it has now most certainly become a problem, with judgement now blurred by loyalty.
Andrew Strauss was out of form for an age before he was finally dropped and then recalled without hitting a single run in county cricket. Paul Collingwood was dropped for one match before being recalled for the current Test in place of Stuart Broad. The reasoning behind this seemed stupid at the start and even stupider now. Stuart Broad needed a rest, yet is playing a four day game for Nottinghamshire. The extra batsman would balance the side, yet they essentially replaced a cricketer who has averaged 55 this year with one who has averaged 8. Are the fans missing something here? The end result was obvious for everyone to see even before Collingwood had gone out to bat and once he was there it was even more painfully obvious, no less so than to Collingwood himself, whose torturous 45 minute innings was packed full of nerves and completely devoid of any semblance of confidence. His lack of confidence seems even to be effecting his fielding, as he dropped a relatively easy catch off of Neil McKenzie later on.
England need a reality check and now. They will lose this series, that is all but a certainty, barring a Flintoff inspired miracle and changes to the team. Even worse though, they will slip to 4th in the world and are likely to be humiliated in India and at home by Australia if they do not do what is necessary and change the batting line-up. If it means changing the captain then so be it. Players can only live on past glories for so long and Geoffrey Boycott is not alone in seeing Vaughan as a cricketer who is far from the man who peaked in Australia in 2002. It isn’t as if he excels for Yorkshire either and one good score every other series simply isn’t enough. Who comes in for Vaughan and Collingwood is up for debate, but the leading candidates are Ravi Bopara and Owais Shah, whilst the likes of Rob Key and Joe Denly will be watching the latest troubles of Cook and Strauss with great interest. The captaincy would have to pass to either a younger player, or the more experienced Andrew Strauss, who is statistically proven to improve his run output as captain, averaging around 15 runs more as captain for Middlesex and England (55.66). Vaughan incidentally averages 5.62 runs less as captain (36.02).
On the wicket keeping front it is probably time to go with the best keeper in the country, who in my opinion is James Foster. He will also fit nicely into the ODI side, allowing England to keep consistency of selection which they see as being crucial. If Broad has been returned to county cricket to work on his bowling then playing four bowlers becomes an easier task for England, with the current incumbents the most deserving, although Broad and Simon Jones would be pushing the likes of Bopara and Sidebottom hard for their places in the near future. It is worth noting that at the moment Broad and Jones could only play in a five man attack. Perhaps if the batting line-up could deliver the runs then five bowlers would once again be a viable option. For the moment though it is not.
England Test Batting Averages since November 2007:
Strauss 45.07
Cook 40.00
Vaughan 27.52
Pietersen 41.31
Bell 46.66
Collingwood 28.25
Ambrose 26.75
Broad 41.22
Flintoff 45.5 (3 innings, 1 not out)
Bopara 8.40 (5 innings)
Test Debuts Since 2000:
4 Wicket Keeper debuts;
10 Batsman debuts;
22 Bowler debuts;
3 Allrounder debuts.
Test Debuts Since Ashes 2005:
2 Wicket Keeper debuts;
2 Batsman debuts;
9 Bowler debuts;
1 Allrounder debut.
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Team England; Consistently Confused
In what can only be described as a bizarre twenty-four hours, Darren Pattinson somehow found himself in the England Test starting XI on Friday of last week. From being consistently stupid to just plain stupid could be one way of describing the situation. Consistency had been the word of the moment whilst England were just about beating New Zealand in two series. Unfortunately consistency had nothing to do with those victories, the limited skill of the opposition played the major role. Whilst players like Paul Collingwood and Tim Ambrose were contributing nothing, they were nevertheless assured of their places and were it not for the return of Andrew Flintoff, Collingwood would undoubtedly still be playing today despite series averages of 32.83 (India (h)), 33.00(Sri Lanka (a)), 40.66 (New Zealand (a)), 10.66 (New Zealand (h)) and 7.00 (South Africa (h)) which is plainly not good enough (cumulative 30.71, HS 66). Michael Vaughan though tells us that the whole squad are disappointed that Collingwood is not in the XI, perhaps because they now fear for their own places given their own dwindling averages. Consistency must be applied, but needs to take into account form.
Nevertheless, the message of consistency indeed vanished for this particular test match, well for the bowlers anyway, but then that always seems to have been the case with the England side of late. Batsmen have all the time in the world, bowlers do not. Darren Pattinson was on Thursday afternoon called up as a replacement for James Anderson should he not be fit for the game. Chris Tremlett, who has been following both the Test and ODI squad around all summer, was already on standby in case Ryan Sidebottom came up short on Friday morning. Friday morning came and Anderson was fit, but Sidebottom was not, in you step… Darren! Utter madness! Whilst the Australian roof tiler, albeit raised for six years in England, has had a good county season with Nottinghamshire so far, he has played just 13 first class games and only 6 of them this season in England. He doesn’t even play his cricket at Headingley, the location of the second test.
I have no problem with the fact that he is a self-confessed Aussie through and through, but the usual pattern is that you are born abroad, move to England, confess your love for the motherland and qualify, rather than move away for two decades, immerse yourself in the culture of another country, then come back for a summer and strike lucky. That may sound harsh, but strike lucky is exactly what Pattinson has done. A quick glance at the first class bowling averages for this season will reveal that Matthew Hoggard (22 at 24.31), Simon Jones (32 at 16.03), Steve Harmison (40 at 23.10) and Jon Lewis (20 at 24.85) are right up there with England’s newest addition who has taken 29 at 20.86. These are proven international and domestic performers who for various reasons were sent back to county cricket to prove their fitness and their form. Not one of those can be accused of not having done that. All of the above, bar Harmison, are swing bowlers. Surely one of them should have been given the chance instead of Pattinson if swing was what England were truly after, rather than shock and awe. Even the likes of Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett, Kabir Ali, and Tim Bresnan must be wondering what the hell is going on.
As for poor old Chris Tremlett, what can you say. If Anderson had been injured Pattinson would have played, if Sidebottom had been injured (which he was) Pattinson would have played. They were the two injury doubts from the end of the first test, so what was the point in dragging Tremlett around the country if he was never going to get a look in? I know that Moores as a Sussex man doesn’t like Hampshire but come on, the guy is missing out on form boosting cricket and is being consistently dealt mental setbacks! To make matters worse it was Morne Morkel, exactly the Tremlett type of bowler, who did best in this test match.
The batting woes were the most apparent problem however. Michael Vaughan has averaged 29.52 since the tour to Sri Lanka. His series averages are 35.83 (Sri Lanka (a)), 20.50 (New Zealand (a)), 50.00 (New Zealand (h)) and 11.00 (South Africa (h)). He is forever searching for form it seems and for every good series he has had recently he seems to have had two bad, which can not be sustained forever. His captaincy may be a major positive of his presence, but he needs to score the runs consistently as well. Alistair Cook seems to have forgotten what a hundred is meanwhile. The last four times that he has passed fifty he has been out before reaching 61. Given that he offered very little against the Australians last time round, England must be getting twitchy about how he will fair against them come this time next year. The current top three looks very samey and pretty weak. Tim Ambrose meanwhile is surely on the brink. It is quite comical to think that if you are out of form you should be stuck higher up the order, in a more pressurised position, against a newer ball. He has averaged just 18.78 in 9 test innings since making his maiden test hundred in his second test in New Zealand. His career average is 27.16 and falling after eleven test innings. Even worse, in ODI’s he has averaged 2.50 in five innings and one of those was a not out! Add in the fumbles and is this really the man to take England forward? You would have to say that England in attempting to find a balance between batting ability and keeping ability have found neither and indeed now have the worst of both worlds.
England’s problems are back to the fore it would seem and they need to act fast. If they are going to persist with a five man attack then quite simply Matt Prior has to play at number six. Otherwise the team looks unbalanced and bottom heavy. Only by playing four bowlers can England afford to play the best wicket keeper at number eight, which means either of Chris Read or James Foster. However, given Read’s little trip to the ICL over the close season I doubt India would welcome his inclusion come this winter’s tour. Foster seems to tick more of the boxes in terms of what England are looking for in their keeper, a batsman who can bat low down the order in limited overs cricket and a glove man who can snaffle all of the chances which come his way in test matches and who can offer a score with the bat. Prior on the other hand is not going to take all of those catches, but he will offer the chance to play five bowlers without embarrassment. What England need to decide is if they want less chances, but more takes, or more chances and less takes, I’m glad I don’t have to make that call.
Let’s end on a positive note however and the continued improvement of James Anderson in test match cricket. It will be Stuart Broad and Ryan Sidebottom who will be jittery about the next England team selection, with support growing for Jones and Harmison, but given recent events anything could happen.
Nevertheless, the message of consistency indeed vanished for this particular test match, well for the bowlers anyway, but then that always seems to have been the case with the England side of late. Batsmen have all the time in the world, bowlers do not. Darren Pattinson was on Thursday afternoon called up as a replacement for James Anderson should he not be fit for the game. Chris Tremlett, who has been following both the Test and ODI squad around all summer, was already on standby in case Ryan Sidebottom came up short on Friday morning. Friday morning came and Anderson was fit, but Sidebottom was not, in you step… Darren! Utter madness! Whilst the Australian roof tiler, albeit raised for six years in England, has had a good county season with Nottinghamshire so far, he has played just 13 first class games and only 6 of them this season in England. He doesn’t even play his cricket at Headingley, the location of the second test.
I have no problem with the fact that he is a self-confessed Aussie through and through, but the usual pattern is that you are born abroad, move to England, confess your love for the motherland and qualify, rather than move away for two decades, immerse yourself in the culture of another country, then come back for a summer and strike lucky. That may sound harsh, but strike lucky is exactly what Pattinson has done. A quick glance at the first class bowling averages for this season will reveal that Matthew Hoggard (22 at 24.31), Simon Jones (32 at 16.03), Steve Harmison (40 at 23.10) and Jon Lewis (20 at 24.85) are right up there with England’s newest addition who has taken 29 at 20.86. These are proven international and domestic performers who for various reasons were sent back to county cricket to prove their fitness and their form. Not one of those can be accused of not having done that. All of the above, bar Harmison, are swing bowlers. Surely one of them should have been given the chance instead of Pattinson if swing was what England were truly after, rather than shock and awe. Even the likes of Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett, Kabir Ali, and Tim Bresnan must be wondering what the hell is going on.
As for poor old Chris Tremlett, what can you say. If Anderson had been injured Pattinson would have played, if Sidebottom had been injured (which he was) Pattinson would have played. They were the two injury doubts from the end of the first test, so what was the point in dragging Tremlett around the country if he was never going to get a look in? I know that Moores as a Sussex man doesn’t like Hampshire but come on, the guy is missing out on form boosting cricket and is being consistently dealt mental setbacks! To make matters worse it was Morne Morkel, exactly the Tremlett type of bowler, who did best in this test match.
The batting woes were the most apparent problem however. Michael Vaughan has averaged 29.52 since the tour to Sri Lanka. His series averages are 35.83 (Sri Lanka (a)), 20.50 (New Zealand (a)), 50.00 (New Zealand (h)) and 11.00 (South Africa (h)). He is forever searching for form it seems and for every good series he has had recently he seems to have had two bad, which can not be sustained forever. His captaincy may be a major positive of his presence, but he needs to score the runs consistently as well. Alistair Cook seems to have forgotten what a hundred is meanwhile. The last four times that he has passed fifty he has been out before reaching 61. Given that he offered very little against the Australians last time round, England must be getting twitchy about how he will fair against them come this time next year. The current top three looks very samey and pretty weak. Tim Ambrose meanwhile is surely on the brink. It is quite comical to think that if you are out of form you should be stuck higher up the order, in a more pressurised position, against a newer ball. He has averaged just 18.78 in 9 test innings since making his maiden test hundred in his second test in New Zealand. His career average is 27.16 and falling after eleven test innings. Even worse, in ODI’s he has averaged 2.50 in five innings and one of those was a not out! Add in the fumbles and is this really the man to take England forward? You would have to say that England in attempting to find a balance between batting ability and keeping ability have found neither and indeed now have the worst of both worlds.
England’s problems are back to the fore it would seem and they need to act fast. If they are going to persist with a five man attack then quite simply Matt Prior has to play at number six. Otherwise the team looks unbalanced and bottom heavy. Only by playing four bowlers can England afford to play the best wicket keeper at number eight, which means either of Chris Read or James Foster. However, given Read’s little trip to the ICL over the close season I doubt India would welcome his inclusion come this winter’s tour. Foster seems to tick more of the boxes in terms of what England are looking for in their keeper, a batsman who can bat low down the order in limited overs cricket and a glove man who can snaffle all of the chances which come his way in test matches and who can offer a score with the bat. Prior on the other hand is not going to take all of those catches, but he will offer the chance to play five bowlers without embarrassment. What England need to decide is if they want less chances, but more takes, or more chances and less takes, I’m glad I don’t have to make that call.
Let’s end on a positive note however and the continued improvement of James Anderson in test match cricket. It will be Stuart Broad and Ryan Sidebottom who will be jittery about the next England team selection, with support growing for Jones and Harmison, but given recent events anything could happen.
Monday, 21 July 2008
Time for Jones and Harmison?
As many had feared they would be in the first Test, England were comprehensively outplayed here. Once again, England avoided picking their strongest side. For those frustrated with the innate caution in their recent selection, the decision to select Darren Pattinson, out of nowhere, was utterly incongruous.
Pattinson did certainly not disgrace himself, and outbowled Stuart Broad. However, this will probably prove to be his sole Test, for he lacks pace, does too little with the ball and, while accurate, is not metronomic. England would have been better off selecting the in-form Simon Jones or Steve Harmison, both of whom have proved they possess the ability to get out the best batsmen, whilst Chris Tremlett, who performed so admirably against India last summer, must be bewildered as to why England seem so willing to pick him in squads, but so reluctant to pick him in the starting XI.
So the pressing question is: how can England take 20 South African wickets?
Andrew Flintoff should certainly help, and his parsimony with the ball allied to a good second- innings knock, were a reasonably satisfactory return. But, while he is probably amongst England's best four bowlers, the problem of where he should bat persists. Michael Vaughan says seven, with good reason: but Tim Ambrose is emphatically not a Test number six. The problem is compounded by Stuart Broad - while he soon could be, his bowling average after eight Tests is 49. For all his all-round promise, can England afford a man whose bowling is neither overly threatening nor consistently economical?
So the call must go out to Messrs Jones and Harmison. Jones has been back to near his best this campaign: his combination of speed and prodigious reverse swing cannot be ignored now he has gone a considerable way to allaying those inevitable fitness doubts. With Harmison, the problem has always perceived to be mental rather than physical. However, this may just be a case of journalistic over-simplification.
The disappointments of Harmison's performances over the last four years for England, with the odd exception, are well-known. Yet his failures have so often been characterised by a lack of preparation time - think of the South Africa tour in 2004/05; the '06/07 Ashes tour; and even his last Test match in New Zealand. He is a rhythmical bowler, and he has emphatically found that this season. He is the leading wicket-taker in the Championship, with 40 wickets, and has even proved frugal in limited-overs games and Twenty20. He appears confident in himself, having bowled impressively for several months. England cannot afford to ignore his pace, bounce and hostility any longer - especially in light of Morne Morkel's impressive showings - for all the fears over his waywardness.
There is also Ryan Sidebottom, England's best bowler in the last 12 months but seemingly a little jaded. Given his performances have been less impressive of late and he had to sit out the current Test through injury, England should not recall him before he produces some impressive displays for Notts.
The issue is further clouded by the fact none of Jones, Harmison, Anderson and Sidebottom are Test number eights - and are probably not even good nines - which is a major problem given the hopelessness of Monty Panesar's batting. Panesar has been disappointing this series, but England would be loathe to ditch the one clear superiority they enjoy over South Africa.
So there is much for England's selectors to consider in the bowling department. The picture is equally grim elsewhere, with the top three all provoking question marks - Strauss has scored two Test centuries in two years, both against New Zealand; Cook has scored one century in 27 innings and there are increasing doubts over his leaden-footed technique; whilst Vaughan has struggled against Dale Steyn and seems increasingly - and worryingly - vulnerable early on. Tim Ambrose, meanwhile, should be ditched now, especially if England wish to continue with five bowlers, as they probably should. Matt Prior, with reluctance given his keeping displays when in an England shirt, should be granted an extended run at number six.
All is not yet lost for England in this series. But the problems that have been apparent for some time have now come to a head. For six days solid, England have won barely a session - and it will take something special to stem the flow.
Pattinson did certainly not disgrace himself, and outbowled Stuart Broad. However, this will probably prove to be his sole Test, for he lacks pace, does too little with the ball and, while accurate, is not metronomic. England would have been better off selecting the in-form Simon Jones or Steve Harmison, both of whom have proved they possess the ability to get out the best batsmen, whilst Chris Tremlett, who performed so admirably against India last summer, must be bewildered as to why England seem so willing to pick him in squads, but so reluctant to pick him in the starting XI.
So the pressing question is: how can England take 20 South African wickets?
Andrew Flintoff should certainly help, and his parsimony with the ball allied to a good second- innings knock, were a reasonably satisfactory return. But, while he is probably amongst England's best four bowlers, the problem of where he should bat persists. Michael Vaughan says seven, with good reason: but Tim Ambrose is emphatically not a Test number six. The problem is compounded by Stuart Broad - while he soon could be, his bowling average after eight Tests is 49. For all his all-round promise, can England afford a man whose bowling is neither overly threatening nor consistently economical?
So the call must go out to Messrs Jones and Harmison. Jones has been back to near his best this campaign: his combination of speed and prodigious reverse swing cannot be ignored now he has gone a considerable way to allaying those inevitable fitness doubts. With Harmison, the problem has always perceived to be mental rather than physical. However, this may just be a case of journalistic over-simplification.
The disappointments of Harmison's performances over the last four years for England, with the odd exception, are well-known. Yet his failures have so often been characterised by a lack of preparation time - think of the South Africa tour in 2004/05; the '06/07 Ashes tour; and even his last Test match in New Zealand. He is a rhythmical bowler, and he has emphatically found that this season. He is the leading wicket-taker in the Championship, with 40 wickets, and has even proved frugal in limited-overs games and Twenty20. He appears confident in himself, having bowled impressively for several months. England cannot afford to ignore his pace, bounce and hostility any longer - especially in light of Morne Morkel's impressive showings - for all the fears over his waywardness.
There is also Ryan Sidebottom, England's best bowler in the last 12 months but seemingly a little jaded. Given his performances have been less impressive of late and he had to sit out the current Test through injury, England should not recall him before he produces some impressive displays for Notts.
The issue is further clouded by the fact none of Jones, Harmison, Anderson and Sidebottom are Test number eights - and are probably not even good nines - which is a major problem given the hopelessness of Monty Panesar's batting. Panesar has been disappointing this series, but England would be loathe to ditch the one clear superiority they enjoy over South Africa.
So there is much for England's selectors to consider in the bowling department. The picture is equally grim elsewhere, with the top three all provoking question marks - Strauss has scored two Test centuries in two years, both against New Zealand; Cook has scored one century in 27 innings and there are increasing doubts over his leaden-footed technique; whilst Vaughan has struggled against Dale Steyn and seems increasingly - and worryingly - vulnerable early on. Tim Ambrose, meanwhile, should be ditched now, especially if England wish to continue with five bowlers, as they probably should. Matt Prior, with reluctance given his keeping displays when in an England shirt, should be granted an extended run at number six.
All is not yet lost for England in this series. But the problems that have been apparent for some time have now come to a head. For six days solid, England have won barely a session - and it will take something special to stem the flow.
Sunday, 25 May 2008
What to do from here?
How many times have we said that recently? The first 5-0 Ashes defeat for over 80 years? Failing to win a live game against a major Test-playing nation at the World Cup? Losing at home to India? Getting bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka? Being timidity personified in Hamilton against an admirable but not overly threatening attack, against whom England batted for 173 overs, but scored at a soporofic two-an-over, and then subsiding pathetically in the second innings for 110? Coming on the back of New Zealand being decimated by the IPl and ICL, to whom they essentialy lost half their side including their most valuable player, Shane Bond, that would take some beating.
And yet England have managed it. Scrapping over the follow-on target against the Kiwis at Old Trafford was just about as depressing as it comes. Dan Vettori has bowled with mesmerising guile (much better in fact, than he bowled in New Zealand), while Ian O'Brien has been fantastic. But England have been diffident and pathetic, showing no inclination to hit bowlers off their rhythm, allowing themselves to be trapped in their crease meekly, barely able to hit a run and just wait for their inevitable dismissals. If New Zealand have been fantastic, it is in large part because they have been allowed to be.
With the ball, England were far too loose, once more unable to exploit fairly helpful conditions. The bowlers seem incapable of thinking on their feet. While Ross Taylor played a phenomenal innings, testament to his rare talent, England totally lacked discipline or skill. James Anderson is far too erratic for Test cricket, and must immediately be dispensed with. Monty Panesar's downward curve continues; he is symptomatic of England's struggles when the opposition do something unexpected.
A damning indictement of this side is they have not learned from their feebleness in Hamilton, and have repeated all the same mistakes. The batting was abject once more. It is an oft-quoted statistic that all the top six average over 40, but those averages have been in decline for some time. Furthermore, the averages are boosted both by feasting on minnows and today's generally easier batting conditions. 40 is clearly no longer the mark of a top-class Test batsman. The batting lineup seems fundamentally flawed, and rejigging the pack cannot disguise it. Men of skill and desire, such as Owais Shah and Rob Key (and, given the desperation of the situation and the need to win the next game, rather than plan for some mythical date in the future, perhaps even Mark Ramprakash or his captain Mark Butcher, enjoying the purplest of patches), should be brought in, not just for the quality they possess but for the message it would send. The decision to drop Andrew Strauss and simultaneously hand him a new central contract was a half-hearted signal at best; and he got back in without making a run.
The skipper led by example, eeking out an agonising 133-ball 30. He often talks of helping his players "express themselves"; yet he himself was patently incapable of doing that. Ian Bell's innings surprised no one - a painstaking start followed by a somewhat half-hearted waft outside offstump.Paul Collingwood, for the second consecutive innings, looked out of his depth. He maximises his talent, certainly, but is painfully out-of-form - he has hit just 39 runs in seven innings this season - and, ultimately, is simply perhaps not good enough at Test level, whatever an Ashes double-hundred may suggest. The most depressing innings, however, was played by England's best batsman.
Kevin Pietersen has gradually gone from being a maverick, and a genius capable of decimating the bowling with his idiosyncratic brand of fearlessnes, into a man seemingly lacking faith in his own ability. The transformation was inevitable in some respects (as I have discussed before), and is not without its benefits. Maturity has brought some positive aspects, of course, but it is grim watching the contrast between him and Taylor, surely no more talented, on the same pitch in the same match.
This is, at last in part, an indictement of the England set-up. Are players so well-rewarded, that they are so desperate to cling onto their places that they are paralysed by fear? The culture appears to gradually suck the individuality out of players; they are spoon-fed by legions of support staff, and subsequently have lost the ability to think for themselves. This extends even to the captain and coach, who refrain from indulging in horses-for-courses of any sort - the merits of which were reaffirmed by O'Brien's sterling endeavours here. The stability of central contracts has clearly gone way too far: it appears easier to get into the side than out of it. What to do? Sack the lot of 'em? England need a shakeup of sorts, even if it has the whiff of '90s short-termism about it.
And yet England have managed it. Scrapping over the follow-on target against the Kiwis at Old Trafford was just about as depressing as it comes. Dan Vettori has bowled with mesmerising guile (much better in fact, than he bowled in New Zealand), while Ian O'Brien has been fantastic. But England have been diffident and pathetic, showing no inclination to hit bowlers off their rhythm, allowing themselves to be trapped in their crease meekly, barely able to hit a run and just wait for their inevitable dismissals. If New Zealand have been fantastic, it is in large part because they have been allowed to be.
With the ball, England were far too loose, once more unable to exploit fairly helpful conditions. The bowlers seem incapable of thinking on their feet. While Ross Taylor played a phenomenal innings, testament to his rare talent, England totally lacked discipline or skill. James Anderson is far too erratic for Test cricket, and must immediately be dispensed with. Monty Panesar's downward curve continues; he is symptomatic of England's struggles when the opposition do something unexpected.
A damning indictement of this side is they have not learned from their feebleness in Hamilton, and have repeated all the same mistakes. The batting was abject once more. It is an oft-quoted statistic that all the top six average over 40, but those averages have been in decline for some time. Furthermore, the averages are boosted both by feasting on minnows and today's generally easier batting conditions. 40 is clearly no longer the mark of a top-class Test batsman. The batting lineup seems fundamentally flawed, and rejigging the pack cannot disguise it. Men of skill and desire, such as Owais Shah and Rob Key (and, given the desperation of the situation and the need to win the next game, rather than plan for some mythical date in the future, perhaps even Mark Ramprakash or his captain Mark Butcher, enjoying the purplest of patches), should be brought in, not just for the quality they possess but for the message it would send. The decision to drop Andrew Strauss and simultaneously hand him a new central contract was a half-hearted signal at best; and he got back in without making a run.
The skipper led by example, eeking out an agonising 133-ball 30. He often talks of helping his players "express themselves"; yet he himself was patently incapable of doing that. Ian Bell's innings surprised no one - a painstaking start followed by a somewhat half-hearted waft outside offstump.Paul Collingwood, for the second consecutive innings, looked out of his depth. He maximises his talent, certainly, but is painfully out-of-form - he has hit just 39 runs in seven innings this season - and, ultimately, is simply perhaps not good enough at Test level, whatever an Ashes double-hundred may suggest. The most depressing innings, however, was played by England's best batsman.
Kevin Pietersen has gradually gone from being a maverick, and a genius capable of decimating the bowling with his idiosyncratic brand of fearlessnes, into a man seemingly lacking faith in his own ability. The transformation was inevitable in some respects (as I have discussed before), and is not without its benefits. Maturity has brought some positive aspects, of course, but it is grim watching the contrast between him and Taylor, surely no more talented, on the same pitch in the same match.
This is, at last in part, an indictement of the England set-up. Are players so well-rewarded, that they are so desperate to cling onto their places that they are paralysed by fear? The culture appears to gradually suck the individuality out of players; they are spoon-fed by legions of support staff, and subsequently have lost the ability to think for themselves. This extends even to the captain and coach, who refrain from indulging in horses-for-courses of any sort - the merits of which were reaffirmed by O'Brien's sterling endeavours here. The stability of central contracts has clearly gone way too far: it appears easier to get into the side than out of it. What to do? Sack the lot of 'em? England need a shakeup of sorts, even if it has the whiff of '90s short-termism about it.
Monday, 17 March 2008
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.
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, 9 December 2007
Vaughan reaffirms his innate class
Michael Vaughan's extended absence from the England side caused many to wonder why on earth he remained the official skipper, and whether he would be able to stomach another Test. Yet, in his eight Test since he returned after 18 months out, he is now averaging 52. And it would have been higher still but for today's freakish dismissal.
Vaughan returned at number three; due to Andrew Strauss' problems, he had to be moved up to opener for this series. Reunited with the position from which he produced his stupendous run of form in 2002/03, his superb play today brought back memories of this run: the characeristically disdainful pull of the front-foot; the peerless off-side driving; and the dexterity against spin. It also put to bed all doubts over whether Vaughan can captain and open the batting. Together with Alistair Cook, he added England's first century opening stand for 15 Tests. It would be wise if the two are afforded the opportunity to allow their partnership to blossom.
The decision to resign the ODI captaincy has been vindicated too: England have shown real improvement under Paul Collingwood in games Vaughan's knee could have done without. His single-mindedness in returning to international cricket, and performing so terrifically, bears resemblance to that of Sourav Ganguly, similarly written off. For a player who times the ball so imperiously and possesses such palpable class, the England skipper's Test average of 43 is at least five runs too low. If he carries on playing with the ablomb that characterised his 87, however, that will only improve - so long as Vaughan refrains from indulging in his penchant for the freakish dismissal.
Vaughan returned at number three; due to Andrew Strauss' problems, he had to be moved up to opener for this series. Reunited with the position from which he produced his stupendous run of form in 2002/03, his superb play today brought back memories of this run: the characeristically disdainful pull of the front-foot; the peerless off-side driving; and the dexterity against spin. It also put to bed all doubts over whether Vaughan can captain and open the batting. Together with Alistair Cook, he added England's first century opening stand for 15 Tests. It would be wise if the two are afforded the opportunity to allow their partnership to blossom.
The decision to resign the ODI captaincy has been vindicated too: England have shown real improvement under Paul Collingwood in games Vaughan's knee could have done without. His single-mindedness in returning to international cricket, and performing so terrifically, bears resemblance to that of Sourav Ganguly, similarly written off. For a player who times the ball so imperiously and possesses such palpable class, the England skipper's Test average of 43 is at least five runs too low. If he carries on playing with the ablomb that characterised his 87, however, that will only improve - so long as Vaughan refrains from indulging in his penchant for the freakish dismissal.
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Yorkshire 2007 Season Review
After the surprising turnaround in fortunes last winter, from the depths of Chris Adams coming and going, Michael Lumb leaving and Antony McGrath trying to walk out, to the return of Darren Gough and Martyn Moxon persuading McGrath to stay and Jacques Rudolph to join, most Yorkshire fans were quietly optimistic about the new season. Certainly in Rudolph and Younus Khan, there was the potential for big runs from the middle order.
Also, with the strange set up to the English summer and the domination of the World Cup at the start of the season, Matthew Hoggard was available for a much greater chunk of Yorkshire’s games than he had been previously. This meant that the three main strike bowlers – Gough, Hoggard and Jason Gillespie could boast well over 700 test wickets between them. Backed up by England Lions tourists, Tim Bresnan and Adil Rashid, this looked to be a deep batting line-up and a useful bowling attack.
Indeed, consistency was a key to the season. In the Championship, eleven players played in at least ten of the matches, with only Hoggard and Gough not going on to make a century during the season. However, only Jacques Rudolph scored over 1000 runs for the season. Of the five main bowlers, all took more than 20, but no-one got more than 40. Therefore, while Yorkshire were missing a Ramprakash or Di Venuto with the bat, or a Gibson or Mushtaq with the ball, the effort was very much a team one and the make up of young talent (Joe Sayers, Rashid and Bresnan), old pros (Craig White, Gough and Gillespie) and established stars (McGrath, Younus, Rudolph and Hoggard) is a good mix to move the county onwards.
Overall, Yorkshire still finished in the same place as last year. However, the journey was very different and there is huge promise for next season
In the One Dayers, consistency certainly wasn’t the watch-word. Yorks didn’t threaten promotion in the Pro 40 nor look like qualifying from the Friends Provident. Reaching the quarter-finals of the 20:20 was a shock and probably more a feature of the weather.
Highlights of the season
Essentially the first half of the season showed Yorkshire playing to a successful formula. Joe Sayers, in particular, would set a platform for the more explosive middle order to build upon and with Bresnan coming in at 8, the team batted a long way down. This would then set the platform for bowling the opposition out twice. Starting by winning three of the first four championship matches, Yorkshire were comfortably top of the table, and stayed there or there abouts up to the penultimate week.
Low Point
The Champioship showdown with Sussex was a huge disappointment. The loss of form of Sayers and White, Younus and Gillespie being called back to International duty and Gough pulling out injured at the start of the game meant that much of the consistency had gone from the team. Inzamam looked to be a good replacement, but didn’t get to grips with the situation. Michael Vaughan seemed in holiday mode after a tough test series and even at the time, the selection of Imran Tahir made no sense to anyone. The only positive out of the game was another 50 for Andy Gale, who will have a bigger part to play in the team next season.
Player Ratings
Joe Sayers - a breakthrough season for the Limpet. Reminiscent in so many ways of Geoff Boycott, he was the platform around whom the rest of the batsmen played. His aim now has to be to do it for the whole season 7
Craig White – Once a bowling all-rounder, now an opening batsman. Next season is likely to be Chalky’s last and he will probably see less and less action in the Championship. A great servant over the years, but a poor season by his standards 5
Antony McGrath – From want-away to vice-captain, a fine season after a slow start, although Mags will be disappointed at just missing out on 1000 runs 6
Younus Khan – The big scores were expected, the leg-spin bowling wasn’t. Almost single-handedly forced a win against Sussex at the start of the season which would have had a huge impact at the end. A real team man who seems rejuvenated by his season if his recent performances for Pakistan are anything to go by 7
Jacques Rudolph – A controversial signing, but just the type of Kolpak player that should be coming over as he raised the standard of those around him. Solid if not spectacular, he was the stand out one-day player as well as top scoring in the Championship 8
Gerard Brophy – A huge improvement after a disappointing 2006. Useful runs and solid behing the stumps. Also an effective pinch-hitter in the limited over stuff 6
Adil Rashid – Following his break-though with the ball last season, this year he showed he could bat as well, scoring nearly 800 runs and still finished up as the leading wicket taker. His bowling tailed off as pitches became less spin friendly following the rains, and the emergence of Graeme Swann should put back any international call-ups for the time being. However, it was another season than showed more than just promise. 8
Tim Bresnan – Over 500 runs at nearly 40 with the bat plus a century for the England Lions and 34 wickets at 32 with the ball adds up to another excellent season for Brez, who despite having been around for ages is still only 22. On the fringes of the England One Day squad, next season could be a big one for him 7
Jason Gillespie –He created a lot of pressure for his fellow bowlers but only 23 wickets during the season is a disappointing return for the overseas bowler 5
Matthew Hoggard – Started the season like a train and was a big factor in Yorkshire’s flying start to the season. Less effective when he returned after teh test matches, he's still England’s best bowler and good to have around when fit and firing. 6
Darren Gough – The expectations were for the occasional glory day, plenty of missed matches and reminiscence about how good he was first time round. In reality, he took two 6-fers and 37 wickets at just 23, while only missing two games. His captaincy was almost as good as he said it would be and he has to take a lot of credit for turning the club around 7
The Others
Michael Vaughan played in 6 matches, but was a waste of a place after the test series had finished, when he probably needed to rest.
Deon Kruis played when Hoggy didn’t and only managed 8 wickets in 6 matches
Amjad Shahzad was the next quick bowler in an turned in some promising performances. He is likely to feature more next season
Andy Gale played five games but was a One Day regular. Again he’s likey to feature more next season, with his fifty against Sussex showing what we can expect.
Player of the Season
Tricky. As I said at the top, it’s currently a team without stars and the contribution came from everyone. Runner up is Jacques Rudolph, who showed that there would be runs without Darren Lehman. However, the winner is Adil Rashid for his all round effort.
Also, with the strange set up to the English summer and the domination of the World Cup at the start of the season, Matthew Hoggard was available for a much greater chunk of Yorkshire’s games than he had been previously. This meant that the three main strike bowlers – Gough, Hoggard and Jason Gillespie could boast well over 700 test wickets between them. Backed up by England Lions tourists, Tim Bresnan and Adil Rashid, this looked to be a deep batting line-up and a useful bowling attack.
Indeed, consistency was a key to the season. In the Championship, eleven players played in at least ten of the matches, with only Hoggard and Gough not going on to make a century during the season. However, only Jacques Rudolph scored over 1000 runs for the season. Of the five main bowlers, all took more than 20, but no-one got more than 40. Therefore, while Yorkshire were missing a Ramprakash or Di Venuto with the bat, or a Gibson or Mushtaq with the ball, the effort was very much a team one and the make up of young talent (Joe Sayers, Rashid and Bresnan), old pros (Craig White, Gough and Gillespie) and established stars (McGrath, Younus, Rudolph and Hoggard) is a good mix to move the county onwards.
Overall, Yorkshire still finished in the same place as last year. However, the journey was very different and there is huge promise for next season
In the One Dayers, consistency certainly wasn’t the watch-word. Yorks didn’t threaten promotion in the Pro 40 nor look like qualifying from the Friends Provident. Reaching the quarter-finals of the 20:20 was a shock and probably more a feature of the weather.
Highlights of the season
Essentially the first half of the season showed Yorkshire playing to a successful formula. Joe Sayers, in particular, would set a platform for the more explosive middle order to build upon and with Bresnan coming in at 8, the team batted a long way down. This would then set the platform for bowling the opposition out twice. Starting by winning three of the first four championship matches, Yorkshire were comfortably top of the table, and stayed there or there abouts up to the penultimate week.
Low Point
The Champioship showdown with Sussex was a huge disappointment. The loss of form of Sayers and White, Younus and Gillespie being called back to International duty and Gough pulling out injured at the start of the game meant that much of the consistency had gone from the team. Inzamam looked to be a good replacement, but didn’t get to grips with the situation. Michael Vaughan seemed in holiday mode after a tough test series and even at the time, the selection of Imran Tahir made no sense to anyone. The only positive out of the game was another 50 for Andy Gale, who will have a bigger part to play in the team next season.
Player Ratings
Joe Sayers - a breakthrough season for the Limpet. Reminiscent in so many ways of Geoff Boycott, he was the platform around whom the rest of the batsmen played. His aim now has to be to do it for the whole season 7
Craig White – Once a bowling all-rounder, now an opening batsman. Next season is likely to be Chalky’s last and he will probably see less and less action in the Championship. A great servant over the years, but a poor season by his standards 5
Antony McGrath – From want-away to vice-captain, a fine season after a slow start, although Mags will be disappointed at just missing out on 1000 runs 6
Younus Khan – The big scores were expected, the leg-spin bowling wasn’t. Almost single-handedly forced a win against Sussex at the start of the season which would have had a huge impact at the end. A real team man who seems rejuvenated by his season if his recent performances for Pakistan are anything to go by 7
Jacques Rudolph – A controversial signing, but just the type of Kolpak player that should be coming over as he raised the standard of those around him. Solid if not spectacular, he was the stand out one-day player as well as top scoring in the Championship 8
Gerard Brophy – A huge improvement after a disappointing 2006. Useful runs and solid behing the stumps. Also an effective pinch-hitter in the limited over stuff 6
Adil Rashid – Following his break-though with the ball last season, this year he showed he could bat as well, scoring nearly 800 runs and still finished up as the leading wicket taker. His bowling tailed off as pitches became less spin friendly following the rains, and the emergence of Graeme Swann should put back any international call-ups for the time being. However, it was another season than showed more than just promise. 8
Tim Bresnan – Over 500 runs at nearly 40 with the bat plus a century for the England Lions and 34 wickets at 32 with the ball adds up to another excellent season for Brez, who despite having been around for ages is still only 22. On the fringes of the England One Day squad, next season could be a big one for him 7
Jason Gillespie –He created a lot of pressure for his fellow bowlers but only 23 wickets during the season is a disappointing return for the overseas bowler 5
Matthew Hoggard – Started the season like a train and was a big factor in Yorkshire’s flying start to the season. Less effective when he returned after teh test matches, he's still England’s best bowler and good to have around when fit and firing. 6
Darren Gough – The expectations were for the occasional glory day, plenty of missed matches and reminiscence about how good he was first time round. In reality, he took two 6-fers and 37 wickets at just 23, while only missing two games. His captaincy was almost as good as he said it would be and he has to take a lot of credit for turning the club around 7
The Others
Michael Vaughan played in 6 matches, but was a waste of a place after the test series had finished, when he probably needed to rest.
Deon Kruis played when Hoggy didn’t and only managed 8 wickets in 6 matches
Amjad Shahzad was the next quick bowler in an turned in some promising performances. He is likely to feature more next season
Andy Gale played five games but was a One Day regular. Again he’s likey to feature more next season, with his fifty against Sussex showing what we can expect.
Player of the Season
Tricky. As I said at the top, it’s currently a team without stars and the contribution came from everyone. Runner up is Jacques Rudolph, who showed that there would be runs without Darren Lehman. However, the winner is Adil Rashid for his all round effort.
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
England Series Ratings
England eased to a 3-0 series victory against the West Indies, but the opposition, with a few honourable exceptions, were no better than a poor county side. How did England’s players rate?
Alastair Cook 8
Two relatively routine Test centuries to take his tally to six – and two 50s to boot – were reward for a series in which Cook grew in confidence and aggression; in doing so, he showed the time is right for him to have an extended run in the ODI side.
Andrew Strauss 3
While his partner flourished, Strauss’ winter struggles continued as both his technique and previously unflappable temperament came under question. Although he made a very good 77 in the last Test, he averaged at least 21 less than all the other members of the top seven and has much to do to prove he has not been found out at Test level.
Owais Shah 1
Shah played two somewhat chaotic innings at Lord’s and, if this immensely talented player is to thrive at Test level, it will probably not be at number three.
Michael Vaughan 8
It was as if Vaughan had never been away. His comeback hundred hardly rivalled those of Boycott in ’77 and Thorpe in 2003, but, nonetheless, it was a highly fluent knock which showcased the best of Vaughan. His captaincy was an important facet of England’s three consecutive victories though both that and his batting will face tougher tests against India.
Kevin Pietersen 9
Pietersen made two fabulous consecutive hundreds, including his Test best, 226, to illustrate he has the patience and temperament to make huge scores at Test level. Despite a series average of 66, there were still a few too many moments of impetuosity.
Paul Collingwood 7
Collingwood looked worryingly troubled on occasions, but he rode some extraordinary good fortune to make 111 at Lord’s before scoring a terrific 128 on his first Test at home to cement his place in the side. At Lord’s, he also bowled well to claim the wicket of Bravo.
Ian Bell 7
Bell scored a rather facile century in the First Test, but his excellent 97 at Old Trafford made in the trickiest batting conditions England faced all series, was testament to his increased maturity.
Matt Prior 8
Prior scored a century on debut and 75 in the second Test, but it was his innings of 40 and 62 in the last two Tests, made under far more testing circumstances, that were more indicative of his qualities as a Test batsmen, although a few dismissals were born of over-confidence. His keeping, while never matching the levels of Read, was agile and is clearly improving.
Liam Plunkett 3
Plunkett took 4-60 in the match at Headingley, but this was in spite of serial inaccuracy. His action, a victim of excess biomechanics, is fundamentally flawed and if England leave him playing for Durham for the remainder of the summer it will help him realise his rich potential.
Steve Harmison 5
Harmison often seemed incapable of hitting the square, let alone the stumps, but he deserves credit for working through his problems, with the help of Allan Donald, to bowl with much more venom in the last three innings of the series. His commitment cannot be doubted, either, after bowling a spell of 17 consecutive overs to help England to victory on his home ground.
Ryan Sidebottom 8
England’s big find of the series, the shaggy-haired Sidebottom claimed 16 wickets at under 20, although he went wicketless in West Indies’ last two second innings, and also biffed impressively. Left-armers able to swing the ball both ways, as Sidebottom, a beneficiary of many years on the county circuit, proved he can, are rare and he deserves the series against India to prove he can trouble the world’s best batsmen.
Matthew Hoggard 7
Hoggard was reassuring, and most impressive, in claiming 5/86 on his return on the final Test.
Monty Panesar 9
Panesar was England’s key man; there were many occasions during the first and third Tests when it seemed as if only he could take a wicket. Although he was perhaps a little defensive in the first three Tests, he bowled with more loop at Chester-le-Street to claim 5-46. Overall, he was fantastic, claiming 23 wickets at 18 to continue his development as a spinner able to both contain and to take top order wickets even in unhelpful conditions.
Alastair Cook 8
Two relatively routine Test centuries to take his tally to six – and two 50s to boot – were reward for a series in which Cook grew in confidence and aggression; in doing so, he showed the time is right for him to have an extended run in the ODI side.
Andrew Strauss 3
While his partner flourished, Strauss’ winter struggles continued as both his technique and previously unflappable temperament came under question. Although he made a very good 77 in the last Test, he averaged at least 21 less than all the other members of the top seven and has much to do to prove he has not been found out at Test level.
Owais Shah 1
Shah played two somewhat chaotic innings at Lord’s and, if this immensely talented player is to thrive at Test level, it will probably not be at number three.
Michael Vaughan 8
It was as if Vaughan had never been away. His comeback hundred hardly rivalled those of Boycott in ’77 and Thorpe in 2003, but, nonetheless, it was a highly fluent knock which showcased the best of Vaughan. His captaincy was an important facet of England’s three consecutive victories though both that and his batting will face tougher tests against India.
Kevin Pietersen 9
Pietersen made two fabulous consecutive hundreds, including his Test best, 226, to illustrate he has the patience and temperament to make huge scores at Test level. Despite a series average of 66, there were still a few too many moments of impetuosity.
Paul Collingwood 7
Collingwood looked worryingly troubled on occasions, but he rode some extraordinary good fortune to make 111 at Lord’s before scoring a terrific 128 on his first Test at home to cement his place in the side. At Lord’s, he also bowled well to claim the wicket of Bravo.
Ian Bell 7
Bell scored a rather facile century in the First Test, but his excellent 97 at Old Trafford made in the trickiest batting conditions England faced all series, was testament to his increased maturity.
Matt Prior 8
Prior scored a century on debut and 75 in the second Test, but it was his innings of 40 and 62 in the last two Tests, made under far more testing circumstances, that were more indicative of his qualities as a Test batsmen, although a few dismissals were born of over-confidence. His keeping, while never matching the levels of Read, was agile and is clearly improving.
Liam Plunkett 3
Plunkett took 4-60 in the match at Headingley, but this was in spite of serial inaccuracy. His action, a victim of excess biomechanics, is fundamentally flawed and if England leave him playing for Durham for the remainder of the summer it will help him realise his rich potential.
Steve Harmison 5
Harmison often seemed incapable of hitting the square, let alone the stumps, but he deserves credit for working through his problems, with the help of Allan Donald, to bowl with much more venom in the last three innings of the series. His commitment cannot be doubted, either, after bowling a spell of 17 consecutive overs to help England to victory on his home ground.
Ryan Sidebottom 8
England’s big find of the series, the shaggy-haired Sidebottom claimed 16 wickets at under 20, although he went wicketless in West Indies’ last two second innings, and also biffed impressively. Left-armers able to swing the ball both ways, as Sidebottom, a beneficiary of many years on the county circuit, proved he can, are rare and he deserves the series against India to prove he can trouble the world’s best batsmen.
Matthew Hoggard 7
Hoggard was reassuring, and most impressive, in claiming 5/86 on his return on the final Test.
Monty Panesar 9
Panesar was England’s key man; there were many occasions during the first and third Tests when it seemed as if only he could take a wicket. Although he was perhaps a little defensive in the first three Tests, he bowled with more loop at Chester-le-Street to claim 5-46. Overall, he was fantastic, claiming 23 wickets at 18 to continue his development as a spinner able to both contain and to take top order wickets even in unhelpful conditions.
Monday, 18 June 2007
Vaughan's resignation paves the way for a new ODI era
Michael Vaughan has always been a poor one-day player, and it now appears he will never have the chance to rectify this. But his decision to resign the ODI captaincy must be applauded; it is in the interests of both himself and England.
The nature of the shorter formats of the game is such that the chances of Vaughan receiving an injury would be greatly accentuated. At 32, he is probably one major injury way from retirement, and seriously damaging his knee in ODIs or Twenty20 would be a desperately sad end to his international career.
Vaughan’s aim is surely to regain the Ashes in 2009.To achieve that, he needs an extended run in the Test side, establishing stability so lacking in the past 18 months while proving he can still score runs against the world’s finest attacks. Frankly, it makes no sense for him playing in one-dayers. As he has admitted, he will not be around for the 2011 World Cup.
That in itself was not sufficient reason to dispense with him – Australia continued with the likes of Lehman, Bevan and Bichel after the 2003 tournament – but, moreover, England’s chances of success either at the Twenty20 World Cup this year or the 2008 Champions Trophy are not greatly enhanced (if at all) by his presence. So it is a sensible solution for all concerned for him to resign now, having reaffirmed his hold on the Test captaincy against the West Indies.
People will point to Nasser Hussain resigning in 2002 for evidence of the instability two skippers can cause, but Hussain was far less suited to compromise than Vaughan; they are traits that served him very well as skipper, but he was fundamentally not suited to be a ‘half-skipper’.
Vaughan, however, is more laid-back and, though he can be very stubborn, should not suffer greatly from having someone else lead the ODI side, especially as the most likely candidate – Paul Collingwood – would be unlikely to do things in a very different manner. That said, I would prefer to entrust Kevin Pietersen with the extra responsibility as he is by far England’s best player, has a very astute cricket brain and, in ODIs, attacking captains are almost always the most successful – and, if nothing else, he would surely be that.
See 'One Day Options'
The nature of the shorter formats of the game is such that the chances of Vaughan receiving an injury would be greatly accentuated. At 32, he is probably one major injury way from retirement, and seriously damaging his knee in ODIs or Twenty20 would be a desperately sad end to his international career.
Vaughan’s aim is surely to regain the Ashes in 2009.To achieve that, he needs an extended run in the Test side, establishing stability so lacking in the past 18 months while proving he can still score runs against the world’s finest attacks. Frankly, it makes no sense for him playing in one-dayers. As he has admitted, he will not be around for the 2011 World Cup.
That in itself was not sufficient reason to dispense with him – Australia continued with the likes of Lehman, Bevan and Bichel after the 2003 tournament – but, moreover, England’s chances of success either at the Twenty20 World Cup this year or the 2008 Champions Trophy are not greatly enhanced (if at all) by his presence. So it is a sensible solution for all concerned for him to resign now, having reaffirmed his hold on the Test captaincy against the West Indies.
People will point to Nasser Hussain resigning in 2002 for evidence of the instability two skippers can cause, but Hussain was far less suited to compromise than Vaughan; they are traits that served him very well as skipper, but he was fundamentally not suited to be a ‘half-skipper’.
Vaughan, however, is more laid-back and, though he can be very stubborn, should not suffer greatly from having someone else lead the ODI side, especially as the most likely candidate – Paul Collingwood – would be unlikely to do things in a very different manner. That said, I would prefer to entrust Kevin Pietersen with the extra responsibility as he is by far England’s best player, has a very astute cricket brain and, in ODIs, attacking captains are almost always the most successful – and, if nothing else, he would surely be that.
See 'One Day Options'
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
What next for topsy-turvy England?
Rarely can an England team have given such an uneven performance. Six players made it onto the Lords honours board, five are probably now wishing they hadn't bothered. As the team is selected for the next test today, what are the options ahead of the Selectors, and should they be held responsible for the previous selection?
The Successful six
Alistair Cook - He has started the season on form and scoring runs for fun. A brilliant century given the bowler friendly conditions in which he started, albeit against some pretty wayward bowling. Safe from the impact of the returning stars now and will look to make up for his disappointing Ashes series
Kevin Pietersen - Admitted to still being in One Day mode in the first innings, his second inning century was a masterclass in accelarating an innings. He seemed to slip back into One Day mode towards the end of the innings, getting out to an ugly reverse sweep. His "confrontation" with Chris Gayle was another highlight!
Paul Collingwood - They say there's no such thing as a bad century, but this got pretty close to it. Being dropped twice is one thing. The fact that they were both absolute sitters is another. He should also have been given out early in the innings, when umpire Rauf gave his one bad decision of the game. Still, if you're given a chance, then you have to capitalise, and he did that. One blinding catch in the slips and probably England's best seam bowler.
Ian Bell - Another match in England and another ton. That's four in the last five home games, the missing match being the abandoned game against Pakistan. As steady and chanceless as always, he allowed Prior to play his shots, while he just calmly moved along. He is still touted as the one to make way should Flintoff come back.
Matt Prior - What a debut! The batting was brutal, although the other batsmen had taken the pressure off somewhat. In particular, 21 off 9 balls int he second innings gave some impetus that only hte weather could take away. However, it was the keeping that was most impressive. Certainly tested by Harmison and Plunkett, he was tidy and in the end unlucky to concede the four byes that he did, as Monty fired one down the leg side and through the rough. My Man of the Match, and we won't be talking about the wicket-keeping position again for a little while.
Monty Panesar - His best bowling figures, thanks largely to some decent umpiring and wonderful control rather than outrageous turn. It's a good job he showed up otherwise the West Indies innings could have gone on until Christmas.
The Flawed Five
Andrew Strauss - This is beginning to get worrying for Strauss. Two starts and two loose shots while nicely set. This started in the winter, with freak dismissals and unfortunate umpiring decisions. However, it is now becoming a habit and he needs a big score and soon.
Owais Shah - Back to county crisket for a bit I fear. He didn't look comfortable in either of his brief innings, one glorious cover drive apart, despite having played at Lords all his life. He should now be left out to accomodate Michael Vaughan. He'll be back, hopefully via the One Day team where he should cement his place and gain some confidence at International cricket.
Matthew Hoggard - If ever we needed a fit firing Hoggy, this was the game. Unfortuantely injured after ten overs and that was it. The world's best bowler at left handers, if he'd have stayed fit, the chances of the West Indies avoiding the follow on would have been greatly reduced.
Liam Plunkett - In his defence, he's probably not played at Lords much and he seemed to struggle with the slope. Howeve, for someone who periodically shows himself to be an International class bowler, this was another huge step backwards. England have to understand what they need from him. Plunkett needs to understand discipline.
Steve Harmison - The top wicket taker in county cricket this season, bowling at a place where he takes wickets regularly (Lords was his only Five-fer in the Ashes series 2005) against the team that he made his reputation. What could possibly go wrong? And who could blame the selectors for picking him? Unfortunately, pretty much everything and everyone. He doesn't do himself any favours either by claiming he "has nothing to prove" or that he was pretty pleased with the way he bowled on Saturday. Hoggard's injury could give Harmison and Plunkett another chance, but the selectors must be praying that Simon Jones, Stuart Broad and Freddie are available sooner rather than later.
The second test
Michael Vaughan should rightly return as captain. He looked in pretty good nick for Yorkshire against Hampshire before breaking his finger and Owais Shah's scratchy performance shouldn't give the selectors a head-ache.
Andrew Flintoff should only return if able to replace a bowler. Paul Collingwood's performance with the ball shows that he can be trusted in the fifth bowler role and Flintoff's batting of late shows that he can only be seen as a bowler who can bat rather than the true all-rounder he was a couple of years ago. If he is fit, he would replace Plunkett in my team. Harmison survives on the basis of his county form this season, but he is certainly drinking in the last chance saloon.
James Anderson should come in as a direct replacement for Matthew Hoggard. He bowled well with little support in the World Cup and deserves another chance.
The Successful six
Alistair Cook - He has started the season on form and scoring runs for fun. A brilliant century given the bowler friendly conditions in which he started, albeit against some pretty wayward bowling. Safe from the impact of the returning stars now and will look to make up for his disappointing Ashes series
Kevin Pietersen - Admitted to still being in One Day mode in the first innings, his second inning century was a masterclass in accelarating an innings. He seemed to slip back into One Day mode towards the end of the innings, getting out to an ugly reverse sweep. His "confrontation" with Chris Gayle was another highlight!
Paul Collingwood - They say there's no such thing as a bad century, but this got pretty close to it. Being dropped twice is one thing. The fact that they were both absolute sitters is another. He should also have been given out early in the innings, when umpire Rauf gave his one bad decision of the game. Still, if you're given a chance, then you have to capitalise, and he did that. One blinding catch in the slips and probably England's best seam bowler.
Ian Bell - Another match in England and another ton. That's four in the last five home games, the missing match being the abandoned game against Pakistan. As steady and chanceless as always, he allowed Prior to play his shots, while he just calmly moved along. He is still touted as the one to make way should Flintoff come back.
Matt Prior - What a debut! The batting was brutal, although the other batsmen had taken the pressure off somewhat. In particular, 21 off 9 balls int he second innings gave some impetus that only hte weather could take away. However, it was the keeping that was most impressive. Certainly tested by Harmison and Plunkett, he was tidy and in the end unlucky to concede the four byes that he did, as Monty fired one down the leg side and through the rough. My Man of the Match, and we won't be talking about the wicket-keeping position again for a little while.
Monty Panesar - His best bowling figures, thanks largely to some decent umpiring and wonderful control rather than outrageous turn. It's a good job he showed up otherwise the West Indies innings could have gone on until Christmas.
The Flawed Five
Andrew Strauss - This is beginning to get worrying for Strauss. Two starts and two loose shots while nicely set. This started in the winter, with freak dismissals and unfortunate umpiring decisions. However, it is now becoming a habit and he needs a big score and soon.
Owais Shah - Back to county crisket for a bit I fear. He didn't look comfortable in either of his brief innings, one glorious cover drive apart, despite having played at Lords all his life. He should now be left out to accomodate Michael Vaughan. He'll be back, hopefully via the One Day team where he should cement his place and gain some confidence at International cricket.
Matthew Hoggard - If ever we needed a fit firing Hoggy, this was the game. Unfortuantely injured after ten overs and that was it. The world's best bowler at left handers, if he'd have stayed fit, the chances of the West Indies avoiding the follow on would have been greatly reduced.
Liam Plunkett - In his defence, he's probably not played at Lords much and he seemed to struggle with the slope. Howeve, for someone who periodically shows himself to be an International class bowler, this was another huge step backwards. England have to understand what they need from him. Plunkett needs to understand discipline.
Steve Harmison - The top wicket taker in county cricket this season, bowling at a place where he takes wickets regularly (Lords was his only Five-fer in the Ashes series 2005) against the team that he made his reputation. What could possibly go wrong? And who could blame the selectors for picking him? Unfortunately, pretty much everything and everyone. He doesn't do himself any favours either by claiming he "has nothing to prove" or that he was pretty pleased with the way he bowled on Saturday. Hoggard's injury could give Harmison and Plunkett another chance, but the selectors must be praying that Simon Jones, Stuart Broad and Freddie are available sooner rather than later.
The second test
Michael Vaughan should rightly return as captain. He looked in pretty good nick for Yorkshire against Hampshire before breaking his finger and Owais Shah's scratchy performance shouldn't give the selectors a head-ache.
Andrew Flintoff should only return if able to replace a bowler. Paul Collingwood's performance with the ball shows that he can be trusted in the fifth bowler role and Flintoff's batting of late shows that he can only be seen as a bowler who can bat rather than the true all-rounder he was a couple of years ago. If he is fit, he would replace Plunkett in my team. Harmison survives on the basis of his county form this season, but he is certainly drinking in the last chance saloon.
James Anderson should come in as a direct replacement for Matthew Hoggard. He bowled well with little support in the World Cup and deserves another chance.
Friday, 27 April 2007
England Player World Cup ratings
The dust has settled and having got over the disappointment of going out early, it’s time to review the English performance and rate and slate the England players.
The Team
In all honesty, apart from the Australians, we were probably the most predictable team on show. We lost against all of the top four, but beat everyone else. In the games against the eventual semi-finalists, the Sri Lankan game could/ should have been won, we were undercooked against a New Zealand team that started well but ran out of steam at the end of the tournament, we gave Australia their biggest test (according to Ricky Ponting). Only in the South African game were we out-classed – unfortunately that was the one that really mattered.
If anything, it was probably the manner of our victories that caused the most frustration. Workmanlike rather than comprehensive wins against Kenya, Canada, Ireland and Bangladesh denied the country any sense of excitement or hope of what might be to come. Only in the final dead rubber against the West Indies was there a game to really capture the imagination, and most had given up caring by that point.
Overall, fifth almost by default. Low risk cricket, which became the trademark of the Fletcher era meant we weren’t going to be surprised, in the way that India, Pakistan and South Africa were. However, we weren’t going to do much surprising either.
The Players
Michael Vaughan – 6.
An enigma at One Day cricket. The game against the West Indies showed what he can do. However, the South Africa effort was more typical. He can be a brilliant fielder, but is more likely than most to drop a dolly. Bizarrely, the most consistent part of his game was his bowling, which was a real bonus to England and enabled us to go in with Bopara as the fifth bowler. I think if he wants to continue at One Day cricket, we should persevere with him, but the debate will rage on.
Ed Joyce – 4
Following his hundred in the Commonwealth Bank series, there was hope he could kick on. However, despite good scores against Kenya and Canada, he looked out of his depth against the major teams and is lucky to have kept his place in the England squad for the summer.
Andrew Strauss – 6
An odd winter for Strauss, who started off looking in good form without scoring runs. By the time the World Cup came along, he was out of the team, but eventually got back in as Joyce continued to struggle. A good battling innings against South Africa gave hope for the coming summer, but overall a tournament to forget.
Ian Bell – 7
England’s second best batsman – not that that is saying a lot. There were times when he was batting with Pietersen that England looked in a good position, notably against Sri Lanka and Australia. An accumulator rather than a hitter, he looks the best of the bunch to continue as an anchor in the top order.
Kevin Pietersen – 9
Probably the only player from outside the top four sides who would make it into the team of the tournament. Two hundreds, one of which gave us a competitive score against Australia, the other won us the game against West Indies, and at his best against the bigger teams. Scored more slowly than is usual for him, but this was mainly due to the clatter of wickets going on at the other end. Crucially failed against South Africa, and his presence may have spurred them onto their best performance of the tournament. The best one day batsman in the world.
Paul Collingwood – 7
A disappointing competition in the context of his Commonwealth Bank series heroics, but regularly came in needing to consolidate, and in the knowledge that he would be followed by the woefully out of form Andrew Flintoff. One magnificent match winning innings against Ireland, some tight bowling in helpful conditions and the fielding was up to its normal exceptional standard.
Ravi Bopara – 7
When selected, he was compared to Theo Walcott. At the end of the tournament, he should be seen as a regular in the team and (with Collingwood and Vaughan), part of the fifth bowler allocation. His maiden fifty came in the valiant effort against Sri Lanka batting at 7. At the end of the tournament, he was in at 3, which looks like a much better place for him to bat. He’ll be around for a long time to come.
Andrew Flintoff – 4
Nothing short of a disaster for Freddie. He lost the vice-captaincy and any hope of replacing Vaughan as permanent captain when he retires. He lost his reputation as one of the great all-rounders with a wretched series with the bat and has gone from loveable laddish hero to potential new George Best. Consistent, but not spectacular with the ball, he was still England’s best quick bowler.
Paul Nixon – 8
He would probably still be talking if knocked unconscious. A revelation during the tournament, with his ability to get under the skin of the opposition and to play unorthodox effective innings in trying circumstances. Indeed he played the reverse sweep so much, he may have been better playing right handed, but his 6 off Murali was one of the shots of the tournament. He almost got us home against Sri Lanka. He kept the momentum going against West Indies. A fixture in the England team until the 20:20 world cup.
Jamie Dalrymple -3
No runs and hardly trusted to bowl. This could have been the tournament where he blasted onto the world stage. Vaughan’s bowling shows what should have been possible. However, a wretched start saw him usurped by Ravi Bopara, and he now faces a difficult job getting back into the team. Like Joyce, lucky to have made the England summer squad.
Jon Lewis – n/a
One of our tightest bowlers in Australia before flying home injured, but not selected to play in any of the matches, despite the inadequacies of the alternatives. Left early to support his wife through a difficult pregnancy, he must of wondered why he was there at all. One of Fletcher’s failings in the latter days was his favouritism of players. In the England squad for the summer, he must be hoping for better treatment from Peter Moores.
Saj Mahmood – 3
One of Fletcher’s favourites, picked time and again for his supposed prowess in batting, bowling and fielding, he was found wanting in all three disciplines. Only two runs scores all tournament, one good performance with the ball (against Sri Lanka) and conceding runs at nearly 6 an over. Even his fielding was sloppy. He’s still young, but really needs time in county cricket.
Liam Plunkett – 3
Runs in the first game, following on from the successes at the end of the Australia tour promised of more to come. However, his bowling was even more expensive than Mahmood’s, going at nearly seven an over during the tournament. The performances of Plunkett and Mahmood make the treatment of Lewis even more peculiar.
Stuart Broad – n/a
Only played in the last game, so no rating applies. However, hitting the winning runs will help with his confidence and his bowling was tight in a high scoring match. His reputation has probably been increased by missing most of the tournament, and it would be no surprise to see him start for England in the summer.
James Anderson – 6
Played the tournament with a broken finger, but that didn’t seem to upset his bowling. He at least made sure that things were kept tight at one end at the start of the innings, but wasn’t able to take the early wickets that England needed. Along with Flintoff, he was England’s best bowler and is certainly a fixture in the One Day set up. He needs better support though
Monty Panesar – 5
The fielding and batting are no longer comical, but the joy seemed to have gone out of the bowling as well by the end of the tournament. Tight rather than attacking, he seemed to be doing an impression of Ashley Giles and, in the end, he was probably out-bowled by Michael Vaughan. He’s not played a lot of One Day cricket for Northants, and it showed.
The Team
In all honesty, apart from the Australians, we were probably the most predictable team on show. We lost against all of the top four, but beat everyone else. In the games against the eventual semi-finalists, the Sri Lankan game could/ should have been won, we were undercooked against a New Zealand team that started well but ran out of steam at the end of the tournament, we gave Australia their biggest test (according to Ricky Ponting). Only in the South African game were we out-classed – unfortunately that was the one that really mattered.
If anything, it was probably the manner of our victories that caused the most frustration. Workmanlike rather than comprehensive wins against Kenya, Canada, Ireland and Bangladesh denied the country any sense of excitement or hope of what might be to come. Only in the final dead rubber against the West Indies was there a game to really capture the imagination, and most had given up caring by that point.
Overall, fifth almost by default. Low risk cricket, which became the trademark of the Fletcher era meant we weren’t going to be surprised, in the way that India, Pakistan and South Africa were. However, we weren’t going to do much surprising either.
The Players
Michael Vaughan – 6.
An enigma at One Day cricket. The game against the West Indies showed what he can do. However, the South Africa effort was more typical. He can be a brilliant fielder, but is more likely than most to drop a dolly. Bizarrely, the most consistent part of his game was his bowling, which was a real bonus to England and enabled us to go in with Bopara as the fifth bowler. I think if he wants to continue at One Day cricket, we should persevere with him, but the debate will rage on.
Ed Joyce – 4
Following his hundred in the Commonwealth Bank series, there was hope he could kick on. However, despite good scores against Kenya and Canada, he looked out of his depth against the major teams and is lucky to have kept his place in the England squad for the summer.
Andrew Strauss – 6
An odd winter for Strauss, who started off looking in good form without scoring runs. By the time the World Cup came along, he was out of the team, but eventually got back in as Joyce continued to struggle. A good battling innings against South Africa gave hope for the coming summer, but overall a tournament to forget.
Ian Bell – 7
England’s second best batsman – not that that is saying a lot. There were times when he was batting with Pietersen that England looked in a good position, notably against Sri Lanka and Australia. An accumulator rather than a hitter, he looks the best of the bunch to continue as an anchor in the top order.
Kevin Pietersen – 9
Probably the only player from outside the top four sides who would make it into the team of the tournament. Two hundreds, one of which gave us a competitive score against Australia, the other won us the game against West Indies, and at his best against the bigger teams. Scored more slowly than is usual for him, but this was mainly due to the clatter of wickets going on at the other end. Crucially failed against South Africa, and his presence may have spurred them onto their best performance of the tournament. The best one day batsman in the world.
Paul Collingwood – 7
A disappointing competition in the context of his Commonwealth Bank series heroics, but regularly came in needing to consolidate, and in the knowledge that he would be followed by the woefully out of form Andrew Flintoff. One magnificent match winning innings against Ireland, some tight bowling in helpful conditions and the fielding was up to its normal exceptional standard.
Ravi Bopara – 7
When selected, he was compared to Theo Walcott. At the end of the tournament, he should be seen as a regular in the team and (with Collingwood and Vaughan), part of the fifth bowler allocation. His maiden fifty came in the valiant effort against Sri Lanka batting at 7. At the end of the tournament, he was in at 3, which looks like a much better place for him to bat. He’ll be around for a long time to come.
Andrew Flintoff – 4
Nothing short of a disaster for Freddie. He lost the vice-captaincy and any hope of replacing Vaughan as permanent captain when he retires. He lost his reputation as one of the great all-rounders with a wretched series with the bat and has gone from loveable laddish hero to potential new George Best. Consistent, but not spectacular with the ball, he was still England’s best quick bowler.
Paul Nixon – 8
He would probably still be talking if knocked unconscious. A revelation during the tournament, with his ability to get under the skin of the opposition and to play unorthodox effective innings in trying circumstances. Indeed he played the reverse sweep so much, he may have been better playing right handed, but his 6 off Murali was one of the shots of the tournament. He almost got us home against Sri Lanka. He kept the momentum going against West Indies. A fixture in the England team until the 20:20 world cup.
Jamie Dalrymple -3
No runs and hardly trusted to bowl. This could have been the tournament where he blasted onto the world stage. Vaughan’s bowling shows what should have been possible. However, a wretched start saw him usurped by Ravi Bopara, and he now faces a difficult job getting back into the team. Like Joyce, lucky to have made the England summer squad.
Jon Lewis – n/a
One of our tightest bowlers in Australia before flying home injured, but not selected to play in any of the matches, despite the inadequacies of the alternatives. Left early to support his wife through a difficult pregnancy, he must of wondered why he was there at all. One of Fletcher’s failings in the latter days was his favouritism of players. In the England squad for the summer, he must be hoping for better treatment from Peter Moores.
Saj Mahmood – 3
One of Fletcher’s favourites, picked time and again for his supposed prowess in batting, bowling and fielding, he was found wanting in all three disciplines. Only two runs scores all tournament, one good performance with the ball (against Sri Lanka) and conceding runs at nearly 6 an over. Even his fielding was sloppy. He’s still young, but really needs time in county cricket.
Liam Plunkett – 3
Runs in the first game, following on from the successes at the end of the Australia tour promised of more to come. However, his bowling was even more expensive than Mahmood’s, going at nearly seven an over during the tournament. The performances of Plunkett and Mahmood make the treatment of Lewis even more peculiar.
Stuart Broad – n/a
Only played in the last game, so no rating applies. However, hitting the winning runs will help with his confidence and his bowling was tight in a high scoring match. His reputation has probably been increased by missing most of the tournament, and it would be no surprise to see him start for England in the summer.
James Anderson – 6
Played the tournament with a broken finger, but that didn’t seem to upset his bowling. He at least made sure that things were kept tight at one end at the start of the innings, but wasn’t able to take the early wickets that England needed. Along with Flintoff, he was England’s best bowler and is certainly a fixture in the One Day set up. He needs better support though
Monty Panesar – 5
The fielding and batting are no longer comical, but the joy seemed to have gone out of the bowling as well by the end of the tournament. Tight rather than attacking, he seemed to be doing an impression of Ashley Giles and, in the end, he was probably out-bowled by Michael Vaughan. He’s not played a lot of One Day cricket for Northants, and it showed.
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Super Eight’s Going Home Flops
It does exactly what it says on the tin! (NB: Players must have played at least 5 games):
1. Chris Gayle WIN
Inns: 9 Runs: 212 Average: 25.33 HS: 79 Bowling Average: 56.4
- Failed to be the explosive player the West Indies needed. Simply didn't show up and even his bowling was unusually wayward.
2. Shariar Nafees BAN
Inns: 6 Runs: 31 Average: 5.16 HS: 12
- Having showed so much promise in the last twelve months, Nafees just couldn't buy a run, averaging 5 from 6 innings.
3. Michael Vaughan (vc) ENG
Inns: 9 Runs: 209 Average: 23.22 HS: 79
- The similarities with Gayle are scary. Bowling better than batting, top score of 79 in his last match! His captaincy wasn't bad, but was rather dictated by the poor performances of his team mates. Vaughan hardly set the tone for them though, at the crease or in the field. Surely the end of his ODI torture.
4. Eoin Morgan IRE
Inns: 9 Runs: 91 Average: 10.11 HS: 28
- One of very few Irish players to have played county cricket, he failed abysmally and was a real let down. Many expected a lot more of a talented player, especially John Emburey.
5. Habibul Bashar (c) BAN
Inns: 8 Runs: 105 Average: 13.12 HS: 32
- The complete opposite of confidence personified! Bashar simply got worse as the tournament progressed, failing to set an example and having a penchant for the run out. His captaincy wasn't much better, hence why he gains the acrymonious honour of captaining our flop side.
6. Aftab Ahmed BAN
Inns: 9 Runs: 128 Average: 14.22 HS: 35 Bowling Average: 38.0
- Aftab is one of Bangladesh's promising young guns, but he failed to deliver in this tournament and only just managed to score slightly more runs than his captain, a dubious honour.
7. Andre Botha IRE
Inns: 7 Runs: 62 Average: 10.33 HS: 28 Bowling Average: 36.2
- His bowling was economical, but for a middle order batsman his contributions were very poor. Not helped by injury, but Ireland would have expected more from their overseas import.
8. Andrew Flintoff ENG
Inns: 7 Runs: 92 Average: 13.14 HS: 43
- Bowling was good, if a little expensive at times. No-one will question his place on bowling skill, but number six now appears a skyscrapper too high for Freddie. Against the West Indies, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa Flintoff contributed just 26 runs from 5 innings, that becomes 11 from 4 if you remove yesterday's effort. That is woeful form and undeserving of even eighth place in the batting.
9. Dinesh Ramdin (wk) WIN
Inns: 6 Runs: 84 Average: 16.8 HS: 52
- Failed to dispel the notion that he is not a wicket keeper batsman. In fact at times his glovework didn't even suggest he was a wicket keeper!
10. Sajid Mahmood ENG
Overs: 48.0 Average: 32.37 Economy: 5.40 Batting Average: 1.0
- Another tale of wasted talent. Has a good slower ball, can top 90 m.p.h. Unfortunately this matters little when it shoots down leg, or is a wide half volley. A batsman's best friend, he really needs a first full season, or two, in county cricket to hone his skills.
11. Jerome Taylor WIN
Overs: 64.0 Average: 51.0 Economy: 4.78 Batting Average: 9.25
- He has failed once before and been dropped. However, he was very young then. Having looked like being back to his best before the tournament, Taylor could not live up to lofty expectations once again and tailed away. Just wasn't the strike bowler the Windies needed, but he was hardly well handled by his coach.
1. Chris Gayle WIN
Inns: 9 Runs: 212 Average: 25.33 HS: 79 Bowling Average: 56.4
- Failed to be the explosive player the West Indies needed. Simply didn't show up and even his bowling was unusually wayward.
2. Shariar Nafees BAN
Inns: 6 Runs: 31 Average: 5.16 HS: 12
- Having showed so much promise in the last twelve months, Nafees just couldn't buy a run, averaging 5 from 6 innings.
3. Michael Vaughan (vc) ENG
Inns: 9 Runs: 209 Average: 23.22 HS: 79
- The similarities with Gayle are scary. Bowling better than batting, top score of 79 in his last match! His captaincy wasn't bad, but was rather dictated by the poor performances of his team mates. Vaughan hardly set the tone for them though, at the crease or in the field. Surely the end of his ODI torture.
4. Eoin Morgan IRE
Inns: 9 Runs: 91 Average: 10.11 HS: 28
- One of very few Irish players to have played county cricket, he failed abysmally and was a real let down. Many expected a lot more of a talented player, especially John Emburey.
5. Habibul Bashar (c) BAN
Inns: 8 Runs: 105 Average: 13.12 HS: 32
- The complete opposite of confidence personified! Bashar simply got worse as the tournament progressed, failing to set an example and having a penchant for the run out. His captaincy wasn't much better, hence why he gains the acrymonious honour of captaining our flop side.
6. Aftab Ahmed BAN
Inns: 9 Runs: 128 Average: 14.22 HS: 35 Bowling Average: 38.0
- Aftab is one of Bangladesh's promising young guns, but he failed to deliver in this tournament and only just managed to score slightly more runs than his captain, a dubious honour.
7. Andre Botha IRE
Inns: 7 Runs: 62 Average: 10.33 HS: 28 Bowling Average: 36.2
- His bowling was economical, but for a middle order batsman his contributions were very poor. Not helped by injury, but Ireland would have expected more from their overseas import.
8. Andrew Flintoff ENG
Inns: 7 Runs: 92 Average: 13.14 HS: 43
- Bowling was good, if a little expensive at times. No-one will question his place on bowling skill, but number six now appears a skyscrapper too high for Freddie. Against the West Indies, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa Flintoff contributed just 26 runs from 5 innings, that becomes 11 from 4 if you remove yesterday's effort. That is woeful form and undeserving of even eighth place in the batting.
9. Dinesh Ramdin (wk) WIN
Inns: 6 Runs: 84 Average: 16.8 HS: 52
- Failed to dispel the notion that he is not a wicket keeper batsman. In fact at times his glovework didn't even suggest he was a wicket keeper!
10. Sajid Mahmood ENG
Overs: 48.0 Average: 32.37 Economy: 5.40 Batting Average: 1.0
- Another tale of wasted talent. Has a good slower ball, can top 90 m.p.h. Unfortunately this matters little when it shoots down leg, or is a wide half volley. A batsman's best friend, he really needs a first full season, or two, in county cricket to hone his skills.
11. Jerome Taylor WIN
Overs: 64.0 Average: 51.0 Economy: 4.78 Batting Average: 9.25
- He has failed once before and been dropped. However, he was very young then. Having looked like being back to his best before the tournament, Taylor could not live up to lofty expectations once again and tailed away. Just wasn't the strike bowler the Windies needed, but he was hardly well handled by his coach.
Saturday, 21 April 2007
Preview: The end of an era
An emotional tie today pits Duncan Fletcher against Brian Lara. It would be hard to wish defeat on either of them. There really isn't much else to say, it is all about Lara and how Fletcher can motivate England. There will be some youngsters on view, but all eyes will be on the one legend on the field. It will be a timely reminder to England that none of their players are near reaching that level yet.
Prediction: West Indies win I'm afraid.
Players to watch: Brian Charles Lara and Michael Vaughan.
Prediction: West Indies win I'm afraid.
Players to watch: Brian Charles Lara and Michael Vaughan.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
When strengths become weaknesses, the time is right to go
And so, after seven and-a-half years in charge of England, Duncan Fletcher has resigned. There is a neat symmetry to his reign, in that it ended as it began, with humiliation against South Africa – England being 2-4 then being thrashed by nine wickets. In between, however, Fletcher has done a terrific job.
He benefited from being an outsider; this helped him judge county players on more than mere statistics. Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan and Paul Colllingwood were all plucked from the county scene despite having mediocre records. Fletcher recognised character was vital in developing international players, and placed great faith in those he recognised it in. Yet, in some cases, he found character where there was insufficient cricketing quality – think of Chris Adams, Anthony McGrath and a plethora of one-day also-rans.
Fletcher was meticulous in preparation and, in alliance with Nasser Hussain, began the tough job of restoring England’s credibility as a Test-match nation. An example of this was the enormous emphasis he placed on bowlers being able to bat, in a bid to end the phenomenon of the English collapse.
In the last Test of the pre-Fletcher era, England infamously had three number 12s – Alan Mullaly, Ed Giddins and Phil Tufnell. Choosing Ashley Giles over Tufnell, as he did with the exception of his first series, was characteristic of Fletcher. He had no qualms opting for the less naturally talented bowler, on the basis that he was also able to contribute with the bat and in the field, and was never liable to becoming difficult on arduous tours away from home. And this policy was vindicated as Giles became, in his understated way, an essential figure in the England run of success in 2004-05, culminating in an assured, Ashes-securing 50 at The Oval.
Yet Giles was also indicative of Fletcher’s stubbornness. The coach invariably stuck by players he rated through periods of lean form – Hussain averaged 12 over 10 Tests in 2000, failing to pass 25 in this time – but, by the end of his regime, this admirable policy of loyalty, so rare in previous England regimes, had turned to something dangerously like blind faith. The decision to turn back to Ashley Giles, a consummate professional but one who averaged over 40 with the ball, ahead of Monty Panesar, who had helped England win two of their last three Tests, for the ‘06/07 Ashes will forever be remembered as the moment when it was clear Fletcher’s time as coach was up.
Key to Fletcher’s success was his adaptability, which enabled him to develop exceptional working relationships with both Vaughan and Hussain, profoundly different characters. Hearing either of them say a bad word on Fletcher is almost as rare as the Zimbabwean smiling; yet there are some players who will be pleased to see him go. Think, especially, of Owais Shah, an outrageously gifted batsman who performed very well on Test debut in India but was never granted a reasonable run in either form of the game.
While the 2005 Ashes result is obviously the standout of Fletcher’s regime, the results he achieved in Asia were equally impressive. He was crucial in developing the forward press, which slowly helped eliminate English fear of the sub-Continent. Under his guise, England recorded back-to-back series wins in 2000/01, previously unimaginable.
This was primarily down to the exploits of stalwarts like Alec Stewart, Mike Atherton, Darren Gough, Andy Caddick and Graham Thorpe - all of whom speak not a bad word about their former coach. The manner in which he reinvigorated experienced players was a hallmark of the early part of his regime. The Surrey left-handers Thorpe and Butcher, for instance, both averaged 14 more after their comebacks – Thorpe in 2000, Butcher in ’01.
Ultimately, the two primary failures of Fletcher’s regime were his inability to coax the relatively young ’05 side onto better things, and his aimless running of the ODI team. He never got to grips with the one-day game, using it to try out potential Test players, like Sajid Mahmood, even when they were patently unsuited to the shorter game, and employed an archaic top-order strategy in the 2007 World Cup.
Why have the 2005 side, with the exception of Kevin Pietersen, Matthew Hoggard and series failures Ian Bell and Collingwood, all declined since the spectacular triumph? Some of it may be down to the English psyche, but Fletcher’s loyalty and the “closed shop” that became the England set-up cannot have helped. While he was unquestionably able to get the best out of gritty performers like Butcher, Thorpe, Hussain and Collingwood, his man-management may come into question for his failure to keep Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison as the best players of the kind in the world for a sustained period.
By the end of his tenure, Fletcher’s strengths had become his weaknesses, and new thinking is now needed. Even if it may not seem so at present, English cricket is in an infinitely better state now than eight years ago, with central contracts introduced and the set-up far more professional and conducive to playing quality cricket.
He benefited from being an outsider; this helped him judge county players on more than mere statistics. Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan and Paul Colllingwood were all plucked from the county scene despite having mediocre records. Fletcher recognised character was vital in developing international players, and placed great faith in those he recognised it in. Yet, in some cases, he found character where there was insufficient cricketing quality – think of Chris Adams, Anthony McGrath and a plethora of one-day also-rans.
Fletcher was meticulous in preparation and, in alliance with Nasser Hussain, began the tough job of restoring England’s credibility as a Test-match nation. An example of this was the enormous emphasis he placed on bowlers being able to bat, in a bid to end the phenomenon of the English collapse.
In the last Test of the pre-Fletcher era, England infamously had three number 12s – Alan Mullaly, Ed Giddins and Phil Tufnell. Choosing Ashley Giles over Tufnell, as he did with the exception of his first series, was characteristic of Fletcher. He had no qualms opting for the less naturally talented bowler, on the basis that he was also able to contribute with the bat and in the field, and was never liable to becoming difficult on arduous tours away from home. And this policy was vindicated as Giles became, in his understated way, an essential figure in the England run of success in 2004-05, culminating in an assured, Ashes-securing 50 at The Oval.
Yet Giles was also indicative of Fletcher’s stubbornness. The coach invariably stuck by players he rated through periods of lean form – Hussain averaged 12 over 10 Tests in 2000, failing to pass 25 in this time – but, by the end of his regime, this admirable policy of loyalty, so rare in previous England regimes, had turned to something dangerously like blind faith. The decision to turn back to Ashley Giles, a consummate professional but one who averaged over 40 with the ball, ahead of Monty Panesar, who had helped England win two of their last three Tests, for the ‘06/07 Ashes will forever be remembered as the moment when it was clear Fletcher’s time as coach was up.
Key to Fletcher’s success was his adaptability, which enabled him to develop exceptional working relationships with both Vaughan and Hussain, profoundly different characters. Hearing either of them say a bad word on Fletcher is almost as rare as the Zimbabwean smiling; yet there are some players who will be pleased to see him go. Think, especially, of Owais Shah, an outrageously gifted batsman who performed very well on Test debut in India but was never granted a reasonable run in either form of the game.
While the 2005 Ashes result is obviously the standout of Fletcher’s regime, the results he achieved in Asia were equally impressive. He was crucial in developing the forward press, which slowly helped eliminate English fear of the sub-Continent. Under his guise, England recorded back-to-back series wins in 2000/01, previously unimaginable.
This was primarily down to the exploits of stalwarts like Alec Stewart, Mike Atherton, Darren Gough, Andy Caddick and Graham Thorpe - all of whom speak not a bad word about their former coach. The manner in which he reinvigorated experienced players was a hallmark of the early part of his regime. The Surrey left-handers Thorpe and Butcher, for instance, both averaged 14 more after their comebacks – Thorpe in 2000, Butcher in ’01.
Ultimately, the two primary failures of Fletcher’s regime were his inability to coax the relatively young ’05 side onto better things, and his aimless running of the ODI team. He never got to grips with the one-day game, using it to try out potential Test players, like Sajid Mahmood, even when they were patently unsuited to the shorter game, and employed an archaic top-order strategy in the 2007 World Cup.
Why have the 2005 side, with the exception of Kevin Pietersen, Matthew Hoggard and series failures Ian Bell and Collingwood, all declined since the spectacular triumph? Some of it may be down to the English psyche, but Fletcher’s loyalty and the “closed shop” that became the England set-up cannot have helped. While he was unquestionably able to get the best out of gritty performers like Butcher, Thorpe, Hussain and Collingwood, his man-management may come into question for his failure to keep Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison as the best players of the kind in the world for a sustained period.
By the end of his tenure, Fletcher’s strengths had become his weaknesses, and new thinking is now needed. Even if it may not seem so at present, English cricket is in an infinitely better state now than eight years ago, with central contracts introduced and the set-up far more professional and conducive to playing quality cricket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)