For the first time since 2001, England have suffered a second consecutive series defeat after being comprehensively outplayed by Sri Lanka. Here are the series ratings:
Alastair Cook 7
After a double failure in the first Test, there were real fears over Cook's susceptibility to Chaminda Vaas with the ball. However, he made vital contributions in three of his last four innings, including scoring England's sole century to help save the Galle Test, and has made startling progress for a man not yet 23.
Michael Vaughan 6
During his sublime 87 in the second Test, it felt as if we were watching the '02/03 version of Vaughan. Yet, thereafter, he continually fell to lapses in concentration, and his failure to push on mirrored that of his side. His captaincy was probably below par, though he was handicapped by his lack of bowling firepower.
Ian Bell 7
Two terrific innings in the first Test served to illustrate Bell's technical prowess and promise as a Test number three. But he has reached the stage when he must only be judged on current performance. Too often, he fails to score big for someone with pretensions as a number three.
Kevin Pietersen 4
A mixture of bad umpiring decision, brilliant deliveries and simply poor form saw Pietersen end a series without a 50 for the first time. There are suspicions of fatigue but expect a reinvigorated Pietersen to do much damage in New Zealand.
Paul Collingwood 6
A series of innings that can be described as 'gritty' and 'worthy' produced no score higher than 52 - ultimately, Collingwood is probably a number six rather than number five. His bowling was under-used but effective.
Ravi Bopara 2
Three consecutive ducks says it all. As predicted, Bopara was not ready - with bat or ball - for a Test debut. A baffling selection at number six as his bowling is no better than Collingwood's, Bopara will have a long wait before his next Test.
Matt Prior 6
Very hard to rate, Prior was something of a revelation with the bat, displaying a maturity in shot selection and capacity for playing Murali many thought beyond him. But his keeping has serious flaws - many feel he is worse than Geraint Jones ever was - and no amount of runs will change this fact.
Ryan Sidebottom 5
Sidebottom was unlucky with decisions and dropped catches - again - and endured a disappointing series, although he should still play in New Zealand. His batting, however, was superb - he faced more deliveries than Kevin Pietersen and worked out a method to combat Murali, indicative of a man making the most of his talent.
Steve Harmison 7
In tough conditions, Harmison displayed heart and new-found consistency and was even able to generate tremendous bounce at times. Considering the circumstances, there is no doubt he emerges with his reputation enhanced.
Matthew Hoggard 7
Excellent in the first Test, when he gave a timely reminder of his nous in all conditions, Hoggard was below par in the final game. His quality is beyond doubt; but, worryingly, he keeps breaking down.
Monty Panesar 4
An immense disappointment, Panesar is going through something of a crisis and has work to do to trouble top-class batsmen.
Stuart Broad 4
Faced one of the hardest debuts imaginable, but Broad at least displayed the ability to bowl for long spells with good consistency. Noticeably, his economy rate was 1.5 less than Anderson could manage.
James Anderson 2
Bowled horribly in the first Test, and the feeling is that he may never make it as a Test player.
The Verdict
The simple truth is England were beaten by a side superior in batting and bowling. They showed no little fight, but it is especially frustrating that England were unable to close the gap in the field, where the bowlers were continually let down. With two series wins from eight, England patently have much work to do in all areas.
Showing posts with label Sri Lanka-England 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sri Lanka-England 2007. Show all posts
Saturday, 22 December 2007
Friday, 21 December 2007
The England Diagnosis: Bowling and Fielding
What can England do from here? (Click here for the batting diagnosis)
Wicket-keeping
Matt Prior batted with gumption and no little skill in the series, making two excellent half-centuries. However, his keeping looks like it may never be good enough: he has now missed nine chances in 10 Tests, a success ratio of just 72%, around 10% worse than Geraint Jones. Add to this the problems caused by his positioning behind the stumps, leading the slips astray, and his failure to convince keeping to Monty Panesar and England have much to consider. They would have hoped for a 'keeper who could average close to 40 with the bat and keep to a competent level. Prior looks like he may be able to do the former but should probably be dropped for his keeping, as Simon Hughes has suggested. Who should replace him, if indeed he should be replaced? How long have have you got?
Fielding
England's fielding in this series was worse than for some time, with two of the side's best fielders, in Bell and Collingwood, disappointing in the slips, and few bright spots elsewhere. The importance of a reliable cordon is easy to forget; but England have lost Messrs Trescothick, Flintoff, Strauss and Giles, four excellent close fielders, without replacing them. The solution is not easy to find but, clearly, must work must be done on the close fielding before the New Zealand tour.
Bowling
England only bowled Sri Lanka out once in the series although, considering the shoddy catching and unhelpful conditions, there were mitigating circumstances. The biggest concern was Monty Panesar, who was a huge disappointment for the second consecutive series and may not be an automatic selection for much longer if Graeme Swann continues to excel in the limited-overs game.
Of the seamers, it may now be time to dispense with the perennially frustrating Test version of Jimmy Anderson, while Stuart Broad may is not quite be ready yet. Ryan Sidebottom should be dropped based on his series average of 63, but he was supremely unfortunate yet again and should be effective in New Zealand. Meanwhile, Matthew Hoggard confirmed he is England's most resourceful seamer with his supreme spell on the series' opening day, while Steve Harmison cut out the extras, proved his desire, and will almost certainly start the next Test. The man who deserves a recall is surely Chris Tremlett; though unimpressive with the white ball, he claimed 13 wickets at 29 against India and possesses tremendous bounce and good consistency.
What should England do from here?
Wicket-keeping
Matt Prior batted with gumption and no little skill in the series, making two excellent half-centuries. However, his keeping looks like it may never be good enough: he has now missed nine chances in 10 Tests, a success ratio of just 72%, around 10% worse than Geraint Jones. Add to this the problems caused by his positioning behind the stumps, leading the slips astray, and his failure to convince keeping to Monty Panesar and England have much to consider. They would have hoped for a 'keeper who could average close to 40 with the bat and keep to a competent level. Prior looks like he may be able to do the former but should probably be dropped for his keeping, as Simon Hughes has suggested. Who should replace him, if indeed he should be replaced? How long have have you got?
Fielding
England's fielding in this series was worse than for some time, with two of the side's best fielders, in Bell and Collingwood, disappointing in the slips, and few bright spots elsewhere. The importance of a reliable cordon is easy to forget; but England have lost Messrs Trescothick, Flintoff, Strauss and Giles, four excellent close fielders, without replacing them. The solution is not easy to find but, clearly, must work must be done on the close fielding before the New Zealand tour.
Bowling
England only bowled Sri Lanka out once in the series although, considering the shoddy catching and unhelpful conditions, there were mitigating circumstances. The biggest concern was Monty Panesar, who was a huge disappointment for the second consecutive series and may not be an automatic selection for much longer if Graeme Swann continues to excel in the limited-overs game.
Of the seamers, it may now be time to dispense with the perennially frustrating Test version of Jimmy Anderson, while Stuart Broad may is not quite be ready yet. Ryan Sidebottom should be dropped based on his series average of 63, but he was supremely unfortunate yet again and should be effective in New Zealand. Meanwhile, Matthew Hoggard confirmed he is England's most resourceful seamer with his supreme spell on the series' opening day, while Steve Harmison cut out the extras, proved his desire, and will almost certainly start the next Test. The man who deserves a recall is surely Chris Tremlett; though unimpressive with the white ball, he claimed 13 wickets at 29 against India and possesses tremendous bounce and good consistency.
What should England do from here?
The England Diagnosis: Batting
In many ways, whether England manage to save the 3rd Test is irrelevant. If they are able to do so, it will be in large part due to the rain that has engulfed Galle, and will not in any way disguise their patent faults. Though they fought on more-or-less equal terms with Sri Lanka for large parts of the first two Tests, ultimately no one can deny they have been out-batted, out-fielded and out-bowled by Sri Lanka (even discounting Murali). They are now ranked fifth in the world. After two series wins out of eight, England must now accept they have regressed alarmingly since their golden run on 2004/05. What can they do to improve, or is it simply a case that the best England have are not good enough?
Batting
Excuse me for harping back to my perennial cause celebre, but when Mark Ramprakash was ignored for this tour I wrote that "England are a mid-table Test side; are they really in a position when they can afford to refrain from picking their best XI in the hope of building for some mythical date in the future?" Peter Moores has shown a worrying tendency to support promising 'kids' who have not proved up to the task - Luke Wright during the World Twenty20; and Ravi Bopara here, whose much-hyped 'x-factor' constituted a penchant for being dismissed for a duck.
As Australia constantly prove, the only game you need worry about is the next one, and England's inability to score hundreds is crying out for someone possessing the depths of concentration and capacity for longevity of Ramprakash at the crease. To date, England have scored 10 fifties but no centuries in this series. Even if they go some way to rectifying that, the stat illustrates England have a lot of perfectly competent Test batsmen, but cannot make the big scores that Messrs Sangakkara and Jayawardene batted England out the series with. Curiously for a side in the midst of such a slumber, there is probably only one man - Bopara - for whom the axe is around the corner.
Ian Bell often looks in supreme form at the crease, as he did in the first Test, while failing to really capitalise. As such, he has not yet making the runs to justify batting at three. But with Kevin Pietersen being unfortunate with umpiring decision and snorters alike, and with Vaughan's innings consistently ended by impetuosity, there has been no one to grind the Sri Lankan attack into the dust. Calls for a recall for Andrew Strauss should be laughed off given his form in the past 15 months. That would leave Ramprakash, in an ideal world, to replace Bopara and move up to number three, with Pietersen four, Bell five and Collingwood at six and Owais Shah, once again, next cab-off-the-rank. Most likely, that top six would score big against a Kiwi attack top-heavy with medium-pacers. Whether they could consistently make first innings scores of 400 against the sterner Tests that await, however, would have to be doubtful - but do England have anyone else?
Batting
Excuse me for harping back to my perennial cause celebre, but when Mark Ramprakash was ignored for this tour I wrote that "England are a mid-table Test side; are they really in a position when they can afford to refrain from picking their best XI in the hope of building for some mythical date in the future?" Peter Moores has shown a worrying tendency to support promising 'kids' who have not proved up to the task - Luke Wright during the World Twenty20; and Ravi Bopara here, whose much-hyped 'x-factor' constituted a penchant for being dismissed for a duck.
As Australia constantly prove, the only game you need worry about is the next one, and England's inability to score hundreds is crying out for someone possessing the depths of concentration and capacity for longevity of Ramprakash at the crease. To date, England have scored 10 fifties but no centuries in this series. Even if they go some way to rectifying that, the stat illustrates England have a lot of perfectly competent Test batsmen, but cannot make the big scores that Messrs Sangakkara and Jayawardene batted England out the series with. Curiously for a side in the midst of such a slumber, there is probably only one man - Bopara - for whom the axe is around the corner.
Ian Bell often looks in supreme form at the crease, as he did in the first Test, while failing to really capitalise. As such, he has not yet making the runs to justify batting at three. But with Kevin Pietersen being unfortunate with umpiring decision and snorters alike, and with Vaughan's innings consistently ended by impetuosity, there has been no one to grind the Sri Lankan attack into the dust. Calls for a recall for Andrew Strauss should be laughed off given his form in the past 15 months. That would leave Ramprakash, in an ideal world, to replace Bopara and move up to number three, with Pietersen four, Bell five and Collingwood at six and Owais Shah, once again, next cab-off-the-rank. Most likely, that top six would score big against a Kiwi attack top-heavy with medium-pacers. Whether they could consistently make first innings scores of 400 against the sterner Tests that await, however, would have to be doubtful - but do England have anyone else?
Friday, 14 December 2007
What now for the 3rd Test?
England’s surprisingly easy passage to drawing the 2nd test must give some heart to the team looking to come back from the disappointment of the first. But for the freak dismissal of Michael Vaughan and a couple of “unfortunate” decisions to remove Kevin Pieteresen and Ali Cook, England could have been looking at a formidable first innings score of their own. However, on a slow and dead pitch, only Murali was the only bowler likely to cause major problems and England saw him off with relative ease.
The pitch at Galle will be an unknown quantity. This is the first game at the ground since the Tsunami and its behaviour will be interesting to see. England need to win to square the series, in the same situation as in India two years ago, where Shaun Udal surprised everyone and gave Andrew Flintoff his greatest moment as England captain.
There is a case for looking at the second spinner in the party this time round too. Monty Panesar has had comfortably his most frustrating series in his short England career and is struggling to gain control over the batsmen let alone look threatening. Graeme Swann should during the ODIs that he is an attacking spin bowler and in a game where England need a positive result, he may be a short term solution. He would also bolster the batting, which could be important as I would also drop Stuart Broad from the team that played the 2nd test if Matthew Hoggard is fit to return.
The other change I would make is to replace Ravi Bopara with Owais Shah. I initially supported the inclusion of Bopara as I felt his bowling would be a crucial extra dimension. However, Vaughan has been so reluctant to bowl him that his inclusion over Shah does not seem warranted, as Shah is clearly the superior batsman. However, Bopara has done enough to suggest that there is a big talent there, and Paul Collingwood should be beginning to feel under some pressure for his place in the side.
My team for the 3rd test
Vaughan
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
Prior
Swann
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Harmison
The pitch at Galle will be an unknown quantity. This is the first game at the ground since the Tsunami and its behaviour will be interesting to see. England need to win to square the series, in the same situation as in India two years ago, where Shaun Udal surprised everyone and gave Andrew Flintoff his greatest moment as England captain.
There is a case for looking at the second spinner in the party this time round too. Monty Panesar has had comfortably his most frustrating series in his short England career and is struggling to gain control over the batsmen let alone look threatening. Graeme Swann should during the ODIs that he is an attacking spin bowler and in a game where England need a positive result, he may be a short term solution. He would also bolster the batting, which could be important as I would also drop Stuart Broad from the team that played the 2nd test if Matthew Hoggard is fit to return.
The other change I would make is to replace Ravi Bopara with Owais Shah. I initially supported the inclusion of Bopara as I felt his bowling would be a crucial extra dimension. However, Vaughan has been so reluctant to bowl him that his inclusion over Shah does not seem warranted, as Shah is clearly the superior batsman. However, Bopara has done enough to suggest that there is a big talent there, and Paul Collingwood should be beginning to feel under some pressure for his place in the side.
My team for the 3rd test
Vaughan
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
Prior
Swann
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Harmison
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.
Thursday, 6 December 2007
Harmison must play
Realistically, Matthew Hoggard will miss the next Test; and probably the third too. Patently, England have no real choice: they simply must recall Stephen Harmison. Goodness, we all now how erratic he can be. But he the one quick Sri Lanka will genuinely fear.
After his nightmarish Ashes series, Harmison had an indifferent, though improving, series against the West Indies. Thereafter, he has mixed injuries with some blistering domestic form for both Durham and the Highveld Lions in South Africa. After his traumatic time there in 2004/05, he deserves much credit for returning there to prove his Test match readiness, taking 13 wickets in just two games. Even though his bowling was awash with wides and no-balls, perhaps his attitude has changed for the better. Reports suggest he has been terrific in the Sri Lankan nets.
James Anderson was narrowly preferred to Harmison for the Kandy Test but was awful, lacking penetration and leaking runs. Ryan Sidebottom was also disappointing, but at least he reined in the runs; after his outstanding return to international cricket, particularly during the ODIs in Sri Lanka, he doesn't deserve to be dispensed with yet. That just leaves the last place, to go to either Stuart Broad or Graeme Swann, depending on the conditions. Both would aid England's tail.
Whatever the criticisms that can be thrown at him, Harmison possesses pace and bounce, necessities for a side needing a win to draw level in the series. Were he to wilt in the last two Tests, there would be a very real case for ending his Test career. Before that, however, he must be given the chance to help his country when they have their backs to the wall on one of cricket's toughest tours. He has talked the talk. Now Harmison must walk the walk, and prove he can be a match-winner once more.
After his nightmarish Ashes series, Harmison had an indifferent, though improving, series against the West Indies. Thereafter, he has mixed injuries with some blistering domestic form for both Durham and the Highveld Lions in South Africa. After his traumatic time there in 2004/05, he deserves much credit for returning there to prove his Test match readiness, taking 13 wickets in just two games. Even though his bowling was awash with wides and no-balls, perhaps his attitude has changed for the better. Reports suggest he has been terrific in the Sri Lankan nets.
James Anderson was narrowly preferred to Harmison for the Kandy Test but was awful, lacking penetration and leaking runs. Ryan Sidebottom was also disappointing, but at least he reined in the runs; after his outstanding return to international cricket, particularly during the ODIs in Sri Lanka, he doesn't deserve to be dispensed with yet. That just leaves the last place, to go to either Stuart Broad or Graeme Swann, depending on the conditions. Both would aid England's tail.
Whatever the criticisms that can be thrown at him, Harmison possesses pace and bounce, necessities for a side needing a win to draw level in the series. Were he to wilt in the last two Tests, there would be a very real case for ending his Test career. Before that, however, he must be given the chance to help his country when they have their backs to the wall on one of cricket's toughest tours. He has talked the talk. Now Harmison must walk the walk, and prove he can be a match-winner once more.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Bell not quite there yet
Ian Bell is on the verge of being an excellent Test batsman for England. He has hit four 50s in consecutive innings. The problem, alas, is he invariably fails to go on, a victim of a loss of concentration, a loose shot or, as today, a slight misjudgment. Nonetheless, when the agony of England's narrow loss begins to clear, he can reflect on probably his best Test to date: two excellent, and deeply contrasting innings. But ultimately it was all in vain.
Bell displayed immense powers of concentration during his five-hour vigil. Admirably, he is developing the ability to bat at completely different tempos depending on the match circumstances: he scored at a strike-rate of 35 in the second innings, against 66 in the third. Anyone who can top score in both innings in Sri Lanka clearly possesses immense class and mental resilience. Promoted to number three, however, Bell needs to be making match-defining contributions: which means 150s.
He was on the verge of playing a match-saving innings of wonderful quality before Muttiah Muralitharan was transformed into lethal new-ball bowler. Matt Prior will also feel sickened at having failed to complete the match-saving job but, after his first innings pair, he responded magnificently. Undoubtedly, this was his best international innings to date, infinitely greater than the rather facile runs he plundered against the West Indies.
From reducing the hosts to 42-5 on the opening day, this was a game that gradually slipped out of England's grasp. Primarily, the fault lies with the batsmen, who failed to display the necessary ruthlessness to secure a first innings lead in the region of 150 and succumbed fatally to Chaminda Vaas in the second innings. The two Essex men are of particular concern: Alistair Cook's problem against left-armers may need rectifying out of the side; 'all-rounder' Ravi Bopara was Paul Collingwood's inferior with the ball and, despite some fine shots, lacked solidity at the crease; Mark Ramprakash or Owais Shah would have been more worthy picks. Borderline selection James Anderson, meanwhile, justified my concerns over his place in the side and will surely now be dropped.
In this match, England were ultimately beaten by the better team. Sri Lanka are far from infallible, especially with Sanath Jayasuriya having retired, and their batting line-up has real areas of weakness. After a valiant recovery from 90-5, England will have hopes for the rest of the series. But, unless England can find an answer to Sri Lanka's twin totems, Muralitharan and Kumar Sangakkara, these will only prove fleeting.
Bell displayed immense powers of concentration during his five-hour vigil. Admirably, he is developing the ability to bat at completely different tempos depending on the match circumstances: he scored at a strike-rate of 35 in the second innings, against 66 in the third. Anyone who can top score in both innings in Sri Lanka clearly possesses immense class and mental resilience. Promoted to number three, however, Bell needs to be making match-defining contributions: which means 150s.
He was on the verge of playing a match-saving innings of wonderful quality before Muttiah Muralitharan was transformed into lethal new-ball bowler. Matt Prior will also feel sickened at having failed to complete the match-saving job but, after his first innings pair, he responded magnificently. Undoubtedly, this was his best international innings to date, infinitely greater than the rather facile runs he plundered against the West Indies.
From reducing the hosts to 42-5 on the opening day, this was a game that gradually slipped out of England's grasp. Primarily, the fault lies with the batsmen, who failed to display the necessary ruthlessness to secure a first innings lead in the region of 150 and succumbed fatally to Chaminda Vaas in the second innings. The two Essex men are of particular concern: Alistair Cook's problem against left-armers may need rectifying out of the side; 'all-rounder' Ravi Bopara was Paul Collingwood's inferior with the ball and, despite some fine shots, lacked solidity at the crease; Mark Ramprakash or Owais Shah would have been more worthy picks. Borderline selection James Anderson, meanwhile, justified my concerns over his place in the side and will surely now be dropped.
In this match, England were ultimately beaten by the better team. Sri Lanka are far from infallible, especially with Sanath Jayasuriya having retired, and their batting line-up has real areas of weakness. After a valiant recovery from 90-5, England will have hopes for the rest of the series. But, unless England can find an answer to Sri Lanka's twin totems, Muralitharan and Kumar Sangakkara, these will only prove fleeting.
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Does Anderson deserve to play?
With Steve Harmison having bowled only 16.3 overs in the warm-up games, it seems highly likely James Anderson will play in the First Test. But he would certainly be fortunate to play.
A pace attack of Anderson, Matthew Hoggard and Ryan Sidebottom has some variety - Sidebottom is a left-armer; Anderson is faster and skiddier; while both Hoggard and Sidebottom can bowl canny 'cutters'. However, it patently lacks a taller bowler which, considering Kandy has the most life of any of the three pitches, could hurt England.
Stuart Broad is surely more deserving of a spot in the final eleven than Anderson, who remains too inconsistent. Broad was far more effective in the victorious one-day series prior to the Tests. And he has shown himself to be fearless at international level, with the strength of his temperament confirmed by his fantastic riposte to suffering the ignominy of six 6s from Yuvraj Singh. Moreover, the maturity of his international batting to date, including twice seeing England to victory with vital innings, means he is the only one of the bowlers, save for Graeme Swann, who could do a good job at number eight.
Fletcher-esque thinking? Perhaps. But runs from the tail are undeniably vital and, in a situation where two bowlers are hard to separate, must count. With Matt Prior yet to convince at number seven, and the trio of bowling certainties ultimately no better than number 10s, England simply must be pragmatic. If they fail to be so, 250-4 could turn into 300 all-out with series-losing regularity.
A pace attack of Anderson, Matthew Hoggard and Ryan Sidebottom has some variety - Sidebottom is a left-armer; Anderson is faster and skiddier; while both Hoggard and Sidebottom can bowl canny 'cutters'. However, it patently lacks a taller bowler which, considering Kandy has the most life of any of the three pitches, could hurt England.
Stuart Broad is surely more deserving of a spot in the final eleven than Anderson, who remains too inconsistent. Broad was far more effective in the victorious one-day series prior to the Tests. And he has shown himself to be fearless at international level, with the strength of his temperament confirmed by his fantastic riposte to suffering the ignominy of six 6s from Yuvraj Singh. Moreover, the maturity of his international batting to date, including twice seeing England to victory with vital innings, means he is the only one of the bowlers, save for Graeme Swann, who could do a good job at number eight.
Fletcher-esque thinking? Perhaps. But runs from the tail are undeniably vital and, in a situation where two bowlers are hard to separate, must count. With Matt Prior yet to convince at number seven, and the trio of bowling certainties ultimately no better than number 10s, England simply must be pragmatic. If they fail to be so, 250-4 could turn into 300 all-out with series-losing regularity.
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Panesar's chance to step up
Monty Panesar has already had an incredible impact on English cricket in his short tenure as an international player. In just 20 Tests he has taken 73 wickets @ 30.80, just shy of four per match, and already has six 5 wicket hauls and one 10 wicket haul to his name.
Like all top spinners he is seen as both a strike and stock bowler, able to bowl attacking spells as well as long containing spells. His concentration and economy rate of under 3 runs per over make him a captain's dream, perfectly suited to any stage of a match.
To have achieved so much so quickly is remarkable in a young player who was a student just two years ago, yet one suspects there is much more to come. As he embarks on his first Test series in Sri Lanka Panesar can go head to head with Muralitharan in the great man's own backyard. On pitches that will surely take spin Monty can move up a level and show that he too is destined for greatness.
His record against Sri Lanka, albeit in only one three match Test series, is impressive. Bowling less than a hundred overs Panesar prised out 10 wickets @ 21.00, conceding just 2.11 runs per over. His victims included Tharanga (twice), Sangakkara (twice) and Jayasuriya, all of whom he will encounter at Kandy in a few days.
After suffering a poor series (by his standards) against India recently, Panesar needs to show his class by utilising the conditions in Sri Lanka to his advantage and proving, once again, to be one of England's major weapons. It is on these potentially tricky away series that players can enhance their reputations and I fully expect Panesar to do so.
Like all top spinners he is seen as both a strike and stock bowler, able to bowl attacking spells as well as long containing spells. His concentration and economy rate of under 3 runs per over make him a captain's dream, perfectly suited to any stage of a match.
To have achieved so much so quickly is remarkable in a young player who was a student just two years ago, yet one suspects there is much more to come. As he embarks on his first Test series in Sri Lanka Panesar can go head to head with Muralitharan in the great man's own backyard. On pitches that will surely take spin Monty can move up a level and show that he too is destined for greatness.
His record against Sri Lanka, albeit in only one three match Test series, is impressive. Bowling less than a hundred overs Panesar prised out 10 wickets @ 21.00, conceding just 2.11 runs per over. His victims included Tharanga (twice), Sangakkara (twice) and Jayasuriya, all of whom he will encounter at Kandy in a few days.
After suffering a poor series (by his standards) against India recently, Panesar needs to show his class by utilising the conditions in Sri Lanka to his advantage and proving, once again, to be one of England's major weapons. It is on these potentially tricky away series that players can enhance their reputations and I fully expect Panesar to do so.
Shah, not Bopara, should bat at six
The question of who should bat at number six for England in Sri Lanka straight choice between a pair of wristy Anglo-Asians, Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara, though one feels Mark Ramprakash would have been more likely than either to score a hundred on tour. Bopara is the 'three-dimensional' choice: in addition to his batting, he is a fine fielder and a useful change bowler. But it would be risible to suggest Bopara's bowling is of the potential to change a game; his first-class average of 49 illustrates as much while, in England's ODI side, Paul Collingwood's presence often means Bopara does not have to bowl at all.
So unless England are guilty of real muddled thinking, the Bopara-Shah dilemma will be resolved simply by whomever the selectors believe will score more runs. Shah is a richly talented stroke-maker who has finally established himself in the one-day side. He is in his prime now; his confidence is high; and if he will ever truly 'make it' as a Test batsman it probably must be now. His superb 88 on debut in India last year was indicative of a man with the qualities to succeed in Tests. Bopara has immense promise but has flattered to deceive in the one-day side, his World Cup 52 withstanding. The time is now to see if Shah, for so long marked out as a future England star, can thrive as a Test batsman.
Tomorrow: Harmison, Anderson or Broad?
So unless England are guilty of real muddled thinking, the Bopara-Shah dilemma will be resolved simply by whomever the selectors believe will score more runs. Shah is a richly talented stroke-maker who has finally established himself in the one-day side. He is in his prime now; his confidence is high; and if he will ever truly 'make it' as a Test batsman it probably must be now. His superb 88 on debut in India last year was indicative of a man with the qualities to succeed in Tests. Bopara has immense promise but has flattered to deceive in the one-day side, his World Cup 52 withstanding. The time is now to see if Shah, for so long marked out as a future England star, can thrive as a Test batsman.
Tomorrow: Harmison, Anderson or Broad?
Friday, 19 October 2007
Right on Strauss; Wrong on Ramprakash
England's squad for the series in Sri Lanka contains neither Andrew Strauss nor Mark Ramprakash. In his past six series, Strauss has only averaged over 40 once. Signs point to opposing sides having worked out his minimalist game. They are, increasingly, denying him the opportunity to cut and pull, and so reducing his scoring possibilities dramatically. Moreover, he seems mentally fatigued, having gone from one failure to the next. Even a month playing in both second divisions for Middlesex did not see an upturn in form - although, because his slump has gone on for so long, it looks more than just a temporary dip. The puzzle is not why he is omitted; it is why England saw fit to award him a lucrative central contract.
Ramprakash, conversely, did everything that could have been possibly required to show he is physically and mentally ripe for a return to Test match cricket. In the last three seasons, he has averaged 75, 103 and 101. Yet, astonishingly, he is being omitted, showing that past failings (more than five years ago) and age count for more than current form. David Graveney mentioned the dexterity of Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara against spin; but Ramprakash, with his perfect balance and the concentration to amass huge innings, including 266* against Mushtaq Ahmed at Hove, would simply be likely to score more runs than either in Sri Lanka. England are a mid-table Test side; are they really in a position when they can afford to refrain from picking their best XI in the hope of building for some mythical date in the future?
Of course, Shah is a worthy selection. Bopara, though, is lucky in the extreme. He has tremendous promise, and did well in the World Cup, but he only averages 30 to date in ODIs for England (with a strike-rate of just 70), and did not cover himself in glory in the recent series. Maybe he's being picked for the extra bowling he offers - but a man who averages 48 with the ball at county level is hardly likely to pick up anything more than an occasional wicket at Tests.
The bowling selections are totally predictable but, with the possible exception of Chris Tremlett, no bowlers can feel unfortunate not to have been selected. It is wise that Steve Harmison will have to prove his fitness playing two first-class games in South Africa; he should not waltz straight back into the side. Unless England play both Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad as part of a four-man attack - which is unlikely - their tail will have an unwelcome fragility to it, making it essential Matt Prior proves the doubters wrong at number seven.
Michael Vaughan will return to opening, which is surely the correct decision. Ian Bell, despite having a poor series against India in the Tests and struggling alarmingly (at three) in Sri Lanka, is rather fortunate to be promoted to number three. It would have been more prudent, surely, to use a truly specialist number three who is batting even better than Graham Gooch did at the same age. Either way, this is looks like a series England would be happy to draw.
Ramprakash, conversely, did everything that could have been possibly required to show he is physically and mentally ripe for a return to Test match cricket. In the last three seasons, he has averaged 75, 103 and 101. Yet, astonishingly, he is being omitted, showing that past failings (more than five years ago) and age count for more than current form. David Graveney mentioned the dexterity of Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara against spin; but Ramprakash, with his perfect balance and the concentration to amass huge innings, including 266* against Mushtaq Ahmed at Hove, would simply be likely to score more runs than either in Sri Lanka. England are a mid-table Test side; are they really in a position when they can afford to refrain from picking their best XI in the hope of building for some mythical date in the future?
Of course, Shah is a worthy selection. Bopara, though, is lucky in the extreme. He has tremendous promise, and did well in the World Cup, but he only averages 30 to date in ODIs for England (with a strike-rate of just 70), and did not cover himself in glory in the recent series. Maybe he's being picked for the extra bowling he offers - but a man who averages 48 with the ball at county level is hardly likely to pick up anything more than an occasional wicket at Tests.
The bowling selections are totally predictable but, with the possible exception of Chris Tremlett, no bowlers can feel unfortunate not to have been selected. It is wise that Steve Harmison will have to prove his fitness playing two first-class games in South Africa; he should not waltz straight back into the side. Unless England play both Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad as part of a four-man attack - which is unlikely - their tail will have an unwelcome fragility to it, making it essential Matt Prior proves the doubters wrong at number seven.
Michael Vaughan will return to opening, which is surely the correct decision. Ian Bell, despite having a poor series against India in the Tests and struggling alarmingly (at three) in Sri Lanka, is rather fortunate to be promoted to number three. It would have been more prudent, surely, to use a truly specialist number three who is batting even better than Graham Gooch did at the same age. Either way, this is looks like a series England would be happy to draw.
Thursday, 18 October 2007
Tonight Matthew - I'm going to be David Graveney
As the Rugby World Cup Final approaches, the minds of those who deal with all things sporting could be forgiven for wandering away from the job in hand. With this in mind, I will save David Graveney and co a hard day at the office by picking the squad for Sri Lanka for them. No need for thanks, David, although tickets for Lords next year wouldn’t go amiss.
I have picked a squad of fifteen. It’s a short tour and players shouldn’t go on tour just to carry the drinks.
Batsmen
Seven batsmen to fill the top six spots in the order. Five of them are no-brainers and have contributed to the most stable middle order that England have had since the days of Gatting, Gower, Lamb and Botham. This means no place for International underachiever Mark Ramprakash. Owais Shah’s performances in One Day cricket indicate that he is becoming comfortable at International level. Andrew Strauss has gone potential England captain to under threat for his place in the squad. He edges out Rob Key on the basis that Strauss has just had his longest break from cricket since joining the England ranks. Mental fatigue looked to be one of Strauss’s problems last season and he has enough behind him to encourage patience from the selectors for one more series.
Wicket-keepers
Matt Prior is the player in possession and despite worries about his abilities with the gloves, he is also the best batsman of England’s wicket-keepers. In the absence of Andrew Flintoff this will be crucial as he may need to bat at 6, if England go with five bowlers. On a short tour, the reserve wicket-keeper is around for cover in case of injury. Therefore, a like-for-like replacement in Tim Ambrose will be taken. This means no place for England’s best wicket-keeper, Chris Read, but having made the decision about running with Prior, he should be given a fair chance.
All-rounders
In the past, bits and pieces players have been picked as pseudo all-rounders. However, in this part no all-rounders have been chosen as there are none, other than Flintoff, who are International class. The rest of the squad has been chose to reflect this. It is likely that England will play with six batsmen and four bowlers. However, Vaughan, Pietersen and Collingwood can expect a fair amount of bowling as support to the main four bowlers. If the team moves to five and five, then Graeme Swann or Stuart Broad will bat at number 7.
Spin Bowlers
As only two will be taken, they pick themselves. This means no place for Adil Rashid, who will spend a more useful time playing cricket with England Lions rather than watching the test team
Pace Bowlers
Only four pace bowlers will be taken and with three likely to play in the test team, all will play at some point during the series. When fit, Matthew Hoggard has been England’s best bowler for the past two years. Ryan Sidebottom and James Anderson showed their progression during the summer and with their experience of the One Day series should give control. The fourth bowler is Stuart Broad who is a different type of bowler and has the ability to bat higher up the order than Chris Tremlett or Steve Harmison, which will be critical in the absence of Flintoff.
Therefore the full squad for the Sri Lanka series is:
Michael Vaughan (Capt)
Alistair Cook
Andrew Strauss
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Bell
Paul Collingwood
Owais Shah
Matthew Prior
Tim Ambrose
Monty Panesar
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Matthew Hoggard
Ryan Sidebottom
James Anderson
I have picked a squad of fifteen. It’s a short tour and players shouldn’t go on tour just to carry the drinks.
Batsmen
Seven batsmen to fill the top six spots in the order. Five of them are no-brainers and have contributed to the most stable middle order that England have had since the days of Gatting, Gower, Lamb and Botham. This means no place for International underachiever Mark Ramprakash. Owais Shah’s performances in One Day cricket indicate that he is becoming comfortable at International level. Andrew Strauss has gone potential England captain to under threat for his place in the squad. He edges out Rob Key on the basis that Strauss has just had his longest break from cricket since joining the England ranks. Mental fatigue looked to be one of Strauss’s problems last season and he has enough behind him to encourage patience from the selectors for one more series.
Wicket-keepers
Matt Prior is the player in possession and despite worries about his abilities with the gloves, he is also the best batsman of England’s wicket-keepers. In the absence of Andrew Flintoff this will be crucial as he may need to bat at 6, if England go with five bowlers. On a short tour, the reserve wicket-keeper is around for cover in case of injury. Therefore, a like-for-like replacement in Tim Ambrose will be taken. This means no place for England’s best wicket-keeper, Chris Read, but having made the decision about running with Prior, he should be given a fair chance.
All-rounders
In the past, bits and pieces players have been picked as pseudo all-rounders. However, in this part no all-rounders have been chosen as there are none, other than Flintoff, who are International class. The rest of the squad has been chose to reflect this. It is likely that England will play with six batsmen and four bowlers. However, Vaughan, Pietersen and Collingwood can expect a fair amount of bowling as support to the main four bowlers. If the team moves to five and five, then Graeme Swann or Stuart Broad will bat at number 7.
Spin Bowlers
As only two will be taken, they pick themselves. This means no place for Adil Rashid, who will spend a more useful time playing cricket with England Lions rather than watching the test team
Pace Bowlers
Only four pace bowlers will be taken and with three likely to play in the test team, all will play at some point during the series. When fit, Matthew Hoggard has been England’s best bowler for the past two years. Ryan Sidebottom and James Anderson showed their progression during the summer and with their experience of the One Day series should give control. The fourth bowler is Stuart Broad who is a different type of bowler and has the ability to bat higher up the order than Chris Tremlett or Steve Harmison, which will be critical in the absence of Flintoff.
Therefore the full squad for the Sri Lanka series is:
Michael Vaughan (Capt)
Alistair Cook
Andrew Strauss
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Bell
Paul Collingwood
Owais Shah
Matthew Prior
Tim Ambrose
Monty Panesar
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Matthew Hoggard
Ryan Sidebottom
James Anderson
Saturday, 13 October 2007
England ODI Ratings
Here is how England's players rated in their 3-2 win over Sri Lanka:
Alastair Cook 6
Cook played the decisive innings in the fourth game, scoring a fine 80. However, as shown by his series strike-rate of 57, doubts remain over his ability to score at a run-a-ball on flatter pitches.
Phil Mustard 5
Though he only averaged 18, at least Mustard scored his runs at an excellent rate - 10 runs per 100 balls more than any other top seven players on display - in testing conditions to give England good starts. His glovework was excellent, too, but overall he probably did not do enough to displace Prior.
Ian Bell 2
A top score of 25 was a huge comedown after Bell's superb series against India. He has now gone nine games without a ODI 50, but, aided by his fine fielding, his place is not under immediate threat.
Kevin Pietersen 6
Pietersen struggled on the slow and tracks, often getting out when trying to force the pace, but scored a crucial 63* to seal the series. Will undoubtedly benefit from a rest now.
Paul Collingwood 7
Collingwood was excellent as captain, imbuing his work ethic and combativeness upon the side and utilising his bowlers cannily, although at times he underused the front-line seamers during the middle-overs. With the ball, he used his variations to great effect, reaffirming that he is good enough to regularly bowl his 10 overs. He played two important gritty innings, but failed three times, and only averaged 17.
Owais Shah 6
His 82 at Dambulla was the highest score by any batsman in the series, testament to his unorthodoxy, wristiness and dexterity against spin. Elsewhere there was a series of failures, including a mad swipe in the third game - but also the wicket of Sangakkara.
Ravi Bopara 4
At times Bopara appeared almost a playing 12th man, contributing no innings of note at seven - either failing in a crisis or surviving in hopeless causes - and not bowling at all in the first three games. Under pressure for his place.
Graeme Swann 8
An outstanding return to the side. Swann was ebullient throughout, turning the ball appreciably, displaying excellent one-day nous, fielding excellently and playing two vital cameos at number eight. A terrific all-round package at number eight, he has emerged, for now, as England's No 1 one-day spinner and, surely, the No 2 in Tests.
Stuart Broad 8
Broad responded magnificently after suffering the ignominy of being hit for six sixes in the Twenty20 World Cup. He displayed increased guile with the ball, with his slower-ball being much improved, and claimed at least two wickets in every game, although he had his share of good fortune. To top it all, his 20* in the third ODI was the second time he has taken England home in two months, testament to his batting aptitude and all-round temperament. How long until he plays his first Test?
Ryan Sidebottom 9
A quite phenomenal series. Sidebottom bowled with tremendous control and subtlety, proving very difficult to get away even when there was no swing. He deserves to play the first Test against Sri Lanka. His average - 14 - and economy rate - 3.4 - show why he was named Man of the Series, while he also helped England to victory in the third game.
James Anderson 5
After such an impressive few months, Anderson regressed somewhat here. Though still reasonable, he was too inconsistent and lacked the guile of his opening partner.
Monty Panesar 6
Panesar did well in his solitary game, but the overall ODI package offered by Swann is much greater.
The Verdict
It was a low-key series, certainly, and not played on typical one-day wickets, but that should not detract from a superb result for England; most fans would have probably accepted a 3-2 defeat at the start of the series. On admittedly helpful wickets, their bowling was superb, with Sidebottom and Swann outstanding. Conversely, England's one-day batting remains a worry; once again, the top three are a cause for major concern, while Pietersen's best one-day form has deserted him since the World Cup. Even allowing for a pair of thrashings, there are real signs that England are improving as a one-day side.
Alastair Cook 6
Cook played the decisive innings in the fourth game, scoring a fine 80. However, as shown by his series strike-rate of 57, doubts remain over his ability to score at a run-a-ball on flatter pitches.
Phil Mustard 5
Though he only averaged 18, at least Mustard scored his runs at an excellent rate - 10 runs per 100 balls more than any other top seven players on display - in testing conditions to give England good starts. His glovework was excellent, too, but overall he probably did not do enough to displace Prior.
Ian Bell 2
A top score of 25 was a huge comedown after Bell's superb series against India. He has now gone nine games without a ODI 50, but, aided by his fine fielding, his place is not under immediate threat.
Kevin Pietersen 6
Pietersen struggled on the slow and tracks, often getting out when trying to force the pace, but scored a crucial 63* to seal the series. Will undoubtedly benefit from a rest now.
Paul Collingwood 7
Collingwood was excellent as captain, imbuing his work ethic and combativeness upon the side and utilising his bowlers cannily, although at times he underused the front-line seamers during the middle-overs. With the ball, he used his variations to great effect, reaffirming that he is good enough to regularly bowl his 10 overs. He played two important gritty innings, but failed three times, and only averaged 17.
Owais Shah 6
His 82 at Dambulla was the highest score by any batsman in the series, testament to his unorthodoxy, wristiness and dexterity against spin. Elsewhere there was a series of failures, including a mad swipe in the third game - but also the wicket of Sangakkara.
Ravi Bopara 4
At times Bopara appeared almost a playing 12th man, contributing no innings of note at seven - either failing in a crisis or surviving in hopeless causes - and not bowling at all in the first three games. Under pressure for his place.
Graeme Swann 8
An outstanding return to the side. Swann was ebullient throughout, turning the ball appreciably, displaying excellent one-day nous, fielding excellently and playing two vital cameos at number eight. A terrific all-round package at number eight, he has emerged, for now, as England's No 1 one-day spinner and, surely, the No 2 in Tests.
Stuart Broad 8
Broad responded magnificently after suffering the ignominy of being hit for six sixes in the Twenty20 World Cup. He displayed increased guile with the ball, with his slower-ball being much improved, and claimed at least two wickets in every game, although he had his share of good fortune. To top it all, his 20* in the third ODI was the second time he has taken England home in two months, testament to his batting aptitude and all-round temperament. How long until he plays his first Test?
Ryan Sidebottom 9
A quite phenomenal series. Sidebottom bowled with tremendous control and subtlety, proving very difficult to get away even when there was no swing. He deserves to play the first Test against Sri Lanka. His average - 14 - and economy rate - 3.4 - show why he was named Man of the Series, while he also helped England to victory in the third game.
James Anderson 5
After such an impressive few months, Anderson regressed somewhat here. Though still reasonable, he was too inconsistent and lacked the guile of his opening partner.
Monty Panesar 6
Panesar did well in his solitary game, but the overall ODI package offered by Swann is much greater.
The Verdict
It was a low-key series, certainly, and not played on typical one-day wickets, but that should not detract from a superb result for England; most fans would have probably accepted a 3-2 defeat at the start of the series. On admittedly helpful wickets, their bowling was superb, with Sidebottom and Swann outstanding. Conversely, England's one-day batting remains a worry; once again, the top three are a cause for major concern, while Pietersen's best one-day form has deserted him since the World Cup. Even allowing for a pair of thrashings, there are real signs that England are improving as a one-day side.
Thursday, 11 October 2007
Ramps poised for England recall?
Regular readers of this site will be well aware of my great admiration of Mark Ramprakash, and my calls for him to return to the Test side. Happily, the calls are growing ever louder, with Mike Selvey suggesting today he may well be selected for the Sri Lanka tour.
We know he's failed in Tests before. And we know he's 38. But, would Australia obsess over his age and past failings (an irrelevance to winning cricket matches)? Or would they pick the best possible side to win in Sri Lanka?
A number of Aussies - including Damien Martyn, Matthew Hayden and even Steve Waugh - have done superbly after being recalled. Their selectors seem unconcerned by age - for how long have they been labelled 'Dad's Army'? - and just get on with the business of winning. And that is what England now need to do, ending their ridiculous obsession with a) youth and b) the Ashes. Besides, come 2009 Ramps would actually be younger than both Graham Gooch and Alec Stewart were when they ended their careers.
In averaging 100 over consecutive seasons, an unprecedented achievement, especially with England's Test batting far from convincing, his case is irrefutable. And, as well as being more mellow, the crucial fact is that he is actually a better player, technically, than when he last played for England in 2002, having improved his trigger movements to give himself near-perfect balance. His dexterity against spin, as he showed in scoring centuries off Mushtaq Ahmed and Shane Warne, would be invaluable in Sri Lanka.
It is risible to suggest there are six better batsmen in the country. That is all that should matter.
We know he's failed in Tests before. And we know he's 38. But, would Australia obsess over his age and past failings (an irrelevance to winning cricket matches)? Or would they pick the best possible side to win in Sri Lanka?
A number of Aussies - including Damien Martyn, Matthew Hayden and even Steve Waugh - have done superbly after being recalled. Their selectors seem unconcerned by age - for how long have they been labelled 'Dad's Army'? - and just get on with the business of winning. And that is what England now need to do, ending their ridiculous obsession with a) youth and b) the Ashes. Besides, come 2009 Ramps would actually be younger than both Graham Gooch and Alec Stewart were when they ended their careers.
In averaging 100 over consecutive seasons, an unprecedented achievement, especially with England's Test batting far from convincing, his case is irrefutable. And, as well as being more mellow, the crucial fact is that he is actually a better player, technically, than when he last played for England in 2002, having improved his trigger movements to give himself near-perfect balance. His dexterity against spin, as he showed in scoring centuries off Mushtaq Ahmed and Shane Warne, would be invaluable in Sri Lanka.
It is risible to suggest there are six better batsmen in the country. That is all that should matter.
Thursday, 4 October 2007
Mavericks make it good
Owais Shah and Graeme Swann are a pair of cricketers who, after showing huge early promise, never found favour under Duncan Fletcher. They are now both 28, have both matured and, in Peter Moores, have a coach more sympathetic to their gifts. Both were at the forefront of England's victory today.
Shah seemed destined to be a player who never fulfilled his palpable batting talent, but he has emerged in one-day cricket under Moores. In nine innings in 2007, batting between five and seven, Shah averages 47. Although he either opens or bats at three for his county, his gift for improvisation, wristiness and flair, alluded to his fine technique, make him well-suited to the 'finisher' role. His 82 against Sri Lanka today was a masterful display of how to adjust to slow wickets - something others in the England side, including Kevin Pietersen, would do well to learn from. The feeling, certainly, is Shah is a man nearing his prime, and he could soon find himself a regular in the Test side too.
Swann, meanwhile, was a controversial selection ahead of Monty Panesar, picked for his three-dimensional gifts. Yet he has undeniably vindicated the faith. Spinning the ball hard - as when dismissing Tillekaratne Dilshan today - Swann appears a bowler of superior one-day nous to Panesar. Equally, his lower-order batting has proved very effective: he has a sound technique, as his first-class average of 26 illustrates, can play some unorthodox shots but also work the ball around and scamper hard when required. In short, the overall one-day package he offers is greater than that of Panesar, as good a Test bowler as he is.
The upshot of it all is Swann, as I have previously advocated, is now very likely to tour Sri Lanka as the second spinner for the Test series; and Shah will probably be on the trip alongside him. Duncan Fletcher did an excellent job, but two players who will have shed few tears to see him go are, happily, reinvigorated under Moores' stewardship.
Shah seemed destined to be a player who never fulfilled his palpable batting talent, but he has emerged in one-day cricket under Moores. In nine innings in 2007, batting between five and seven, Shah averages 47. Although he either opens or bats at three for his county, his gift for improvisation, wristiness and flair, alluded to his fine technique, make him well-suited to the 'finisher' role. His 82 against Sri Lanka today was a masterful display of how to adjust to slow wickets - something others in the England side, including Kevin Pietersen, would do well to learn from. The feeling, certainly, is Shah is a man nearing his prime, and he could soon find himself a regular in the Test side too.
Swann, meanwhile, was a controversial selection ahead of Monty Panesar, picked for his three-dimensional gifts. Yet he has undeniably vindicated the faith. Spinning the ball hard - as when dismissing Tillekaratne Dilshan today - Swann appears a bowler of superior one-day nous to Panesar. Equally, his lower-order batting has proved very effective: he has a sound technique, as his first-class average of 26 illustrates, can play some unorthodox shots but also work the ball around and scamper hard when required. In short, the overall one-day package he offers is greater than that of Panesar, as good a Test bowler as he is.
The upshot of it all is Swann, as I have previously advocated, is now very likely to tour Sri Lanka as the second spinner for the Test series; and Shah will probably be on the trip alongside him. Duncan Fletcher did an excellent job, but two players who will have shed few tears to see him go are, happily, reinvigorated under Moores' stewardship.
Sunday, 19 August 2007
Key making a strong England case
Rob Key’s name has slightly been forgotten this season, while astute judges have been busy purring about his hugely promising opening partner Joe Denly. But the Kent skipper has been most impressive, playing a pivotal role in his side’s Twenty20 Cup victory and averaging 50 in Division One of the County Championship.
Key’s talent and tenacity has been evident over his 15 Tests for his country but, too often, he has fallen to reckless misjudgments outside off-stump or, worse, to innocuous part-timers. Though he made a superb 221 against the West Indies in 2004, he could have few complaints about being discarded after the tour of South Africa in 2004/05; he made an 83 but played too many injudicious shots, and had technical deficiencies outside off-stump exposed by Shaun Pollock.
Key played a huge role in Kent’s Twenty20 Cup triumph; he now appears more phlegmatic, and increasingly adapt at pacing run chases. This was clearly in evidence during his four 50s (from just six innings) in this season’s competition; he was hugely adept at scoring off almost every ball, something he conspicuously failed to do during his brief sojourn in England’s one-day side. Yet these new-found qualities suggest that, despite his somewhat unathletic frame, he could be of great use in England’s limited-overs sides; he has greater knowledge of the art of constructing a one-day innings than, say, Alistair Cook.
A first-class average is 41 is testament to the fact that, though a reliable run-scorer in county cricket, Key has seldom enjoyed truly outstanding seasons. Upon being appointed captain last campaign, he disappointed hugely with the bat, averaging a meagre 32 for Kent. Yet his form has been excellent in all competitions this season; Key has gained in consistency and relish for responsibility, rising to the challenge when his side have needed him most. He has also proved a sufficiently shrewd skipper to emerge as a possible future replacement for Michael Vaughan.
In truth, Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara both probably have stronger cases for Test selection, given that they have impressed recently for England. But Key has the advantage of being an opener, making him a potential replacement for the patently out-of-sorts Andrew Strauss.
At 28, Key has clearly matured into a more battle-hardened player less prone to lapses in concentration. He has undoubtedly learnt from his previous experience in international cricket, and is a man with the character and class to aid England’s re-building process.
Key’s talent and tenacity has been evident over his 15 Tests for his country but, too often, he has fallen to reckless misjudgments outside off-stump or, worse, to innocuous part-timers. Though he made a superb 221 against the West Indies in 2004, he could have few complaints about being discarded after the tour of South Africa in 2004/05; he made an 83 but played too many injudicious shots, and had technical deficiencies outside off-stump exposed by Shaun Pollock.
Key played a huge role in Kent’s Twenty20 Cup triumph; he now appears more phlegmatic, and increasingly adapt at pacing run chases. This was clearly in evidence during his four 50s (from just six innings) in this season’s competition; he was hugely adept at scoring off almost every ball, something he conspicuously failed to do during his brief sojourn in England’s one-day side. Yet these new-found qualities suggest that, despite his somewhat unathletic frame, he could be of great use in England’s limited-overs sides; he has greater knowledge of the art of constructing a one-day innings than, say, Alistair Cook.
A first-class average is 41 is testament to the fact that, though a reliable run-scorer in county cricket, Key has seldom enjoyed truly outstanding seasons. Upon being appointed captain last campaign, he disappointed hugely with the bat, averaging a meagre 32 for Kent. Yet his form has been excellent in all competitions this season; Key has gained in consistency and relish for responsibility, rising to the challenge when his side have needed him most. He has also proved a sufficiently shrewd skipper to emerge as a possible future replacement for Michael Vaughan.
In truth, Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara both probably have stronger cases for Test selection, given that they have impressed recently for England. But Key has the advantage of being an opener, making him a potential replacement for the patently out-of-sorts Andrew Strauss.
At 28, Key has clearly matured into a more battle-hardened player less prone to lapses in concentration. He has undoubtedly learnt from his previous experience in international cricket, and is a man with the character and class to aid England’s re-building process.
Thursday, 26 July 2007
Who is England's second best spinner?
With a winter tour to Sri Lanka looming large, who are the candidates to join Monty Panesar on the plane?
Adil Rashid
After taking 6-67 on debut to bowl Yorkshire to victory, Adil Rashid was catapulted into the spotlight as England’s next great spinning hope. When it became apparent that he also possessed significant batting aptitude (he often bats at six for his county), people began talking of a “Spintoff”, capable of both taking five-fers with his leg-spin and scoring Test hundreds. The hype has since died down a little, especially after a mauling at the hands of Tendulkar for England Lions, but Rashid has continued to play a big role in Yorkshire’s championship push, while earning praise from even Shane Warne. He seems certain to play for England one day; but, at this stage, would he be better off with the A team?
Chris Schofield
Schofield’s selection in England’s preliminary Twenty20 World Cup squad was viewed as an enormous surprise, but it should not have been. In the domestic competition, he bowled with guile, accuracy, nerve and variation, with his quicker ball proving particularly effective, to claim 17 wickets at just nine. But, though very good in all one-day cricket this season, Schofield proved less effective in first-class cricket. If he is to eventually earn an England Test recall, it will only be after establishing himself in the limited overs side.
Jamie Dalrymple
Dalrymple fared well initially for England in ODIs, after making his first appearance last summer, scoring two excellent 50s and bowling his off-spin with immense control, and almost made his Test debut at Sydney this year. However, since then, he has regressed alarmingly, losing his one-day place after not doing enough with either bat or ball, and enduring an awful start to this first-class season. His temperament was certainly impressive; but it seems doubtful in the extreme he could worry good Test batsmen.
Gareth Batty
Batty has played seven Tests and ODIs but, though he has batted with great guts, especially against Muralitharan, his off-spin has never remotely come close to being threatening, as Brian Lara illustrated en route to his Test record score of 400. He is just 29, and has a feisty, combative temperament in the Paul Collingwood mould, yet, with his performances for Worcestershire unspectacular, England will surely opt to look elsewhere.
Ian Blackwell
In 2005/06, Blackwell bowled his left-arm spin tremendously in the sub-continent, and was comfortably England’s best one-day bowler of the winter; but injury prevented him cementing his position in the side thereafter. However, for all his one-day guile, Blackwell has rarely been effective with the ball in county cricket, and was unthreatening in his only Test. His batting has proved mightily effective in the first-class game – he averages 38 – yet he has batted woefully in his 34 ODIs. Additionally, his less-than-enthusiastic approach to fitness will also count against him.
Graeme Swann
Swann played a solitary ODI seven years ago, but disappointed the management team with a number of off-field indiscretions. However, at 28, he is now a much more mature cricketer – and person - and has benefited from a move to Notts, whom he helped to win the 2005 championship. In his years in the international wilderness, Swann’s off-spin gained more consistency, while his capacity to generate marked turn is not in doubt. Moreover, he is also an elegant batsman who could certainly make a good Test number eight, and has opened to great effect in the one-day game.
Gareth Keedy
Keedy can consider himself very unfortunate not to have played a Test; perhaps only his status as a batting rabbit has prevented him. He took 132 first-class wickets in 2003 and ’04, and must have pushed Giles close, but, at 32, he now looks highly unlikely to play. With England being loathe to play two left-arm spinners of limited batting ability, his best chance of selection would be in the event of a injury to Monty Panesar.
Ashley Giles
Giles, an important team man during England’s 2004-05 run of success, has suffered terribly with injuries since, and himself admits he may never play professional cricket again. He was totally ineffectual in his only two Tests since, in Australia, where he infamously dropped Ricky Ponting. At 34, and having not played all season, it seems unlikely in the extreme he will play for his country again.
The Verdict
A lot depends on the candidates' form for the remainder of the campaign but, if I had to pick a squad now, I would take Schofield for the ODIs and Swann and Rashid for the Tests.
Adil Rashid
After taking 6-67 on debut to bowl Yorkshire to victory, Adil Rashid was catapulted into the spotlight as England’s next great spinning hope. When it became apparent that he also possessed significant batting aptitude (he often bats at six for his county), people began talking of a “Spintoff”, capable of both taking five-fers with his leg-spin and scoring Test hundreds. The hype has since died down a little, especially after a mauling at the hands of Tendulkar for England Lions, but Rashid has continued to play a big role in Yorkshire’s championship push, while earning praise from even Shane Warne. He seems certain to play for England one day; but, at this stage, would he be better off with the A team?
Chris Schofield
Schofield’s selection in England’s preliminary Twenty20 World Cup squad was viewed as an enormous surprise, but it should not have been. In the domestic competition, he bowled with guile, accuracy, nerve and variation, with his quicker ball proving particularly effective, to claim 17 wickets at just nine. But, though very good in all one-day cricket this season, Schofield proved less effective in first-class cricket. If he is to eventually earn an England Test recall, it will only be after establishing himself in the limited overs side.
Jamie Dalrymple
Dalrymple fared well initially for England in ODIs, after making his first appearance last summer, scoring two excellent 50s and bowling his off-spin with immense control, and almost made his Test debut at Sydney this year. However, since then, he has regressed alarmingly, losing his one-day place after not doing enough with either bat or ball, and enduring an awful start to this first-class season. His temperament was certainly impressive; but it seems doubtful in the extreme he could worry good Test batsmen.
Gareth Batty
Batty has played seven Tests and ODIs but, though he has batted with great guts, especially against Muralitharan, his off-spin has never remotely come close to being threatening, as Brian Lara illustrated en route to his Test record score of 400. He is just 29, and has a feisty, combative temperament in the Paul Collingwood mould, yet, with his performances for Worcestershire unspectacular, England will surely opt to look elsewhere.
Ian Blackwell
In 2005/06, Blackwell bowled his left-arm spin tremendously in the sub-continent, and was comfortably England’s best one-day bowler of the winter; but injury prevented him cementing his position in the side thereafter. However, for all his one-day guile, Blackwell has rarely been effective with the ball in county cricket, and was unthreatening in his only Test. His batting has proved mightily effective in the first-class game – he averages 38 – yet he has batted woefully in his 34 ODIs. Additionally, his less-than-enthusiastic approach to fitness will also count against him.
Graeme Swann
Swann played a solitary ODI seven years ago, but disappointed the management team with a number of off-field indiscretions. However, at 28, he is now a much more mature cricketer – and person - and has benefited from a move to Notts, whom he helped to win the 2005 championship. In his years in the international wilderness, Swann’s off-spin gained more consistency, while his capacity to generate marked turn is not in doubt. Moreover, he is also an elegant batsman who could certainly make a good Test number eight, and has opened to great effect in the one-day game.
Gareth Keedy
Keedy can consider himself very unfortunate not to have played a Test; perhaps only his status as a batting rabbit has prevented him. He took 132 first-class wickets in 2003 and ’04, and must have pushed Giles close, but, at 32, he now looks highly unlikely to play. With England being loathe to play two left-arm spinners of limited batting ability, his best chance of selection would be in the event of a injury to Monty Panesar.
Ashley Giles
Giles, an important team man during England’s 2004-05 run of success, has suffered terribly with injuries since, and himself admits he may never play professional cricket again. He was totally ineffectual in his only two Tests since, in Australia, where he infamously dropped Ricky Ponting. At 34, and having not played all season, it seems unlikely in the extreme he will play for his country again.
The Verdict
A lot depends on the candidates' form for the remainder of the campaign but, if I had to pick a squad now, I would take Schofield for the ODIs and Swann and Rashid for the Tests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)