The selection of a 16-man Ashes training squad, alongside an England Lions XI to face Australia, provides many portents for the summer ahead. The complete omission of Michael Vaughan is the clearest indication yet his Test career is at an end.
However, would it not have been worth selecting him for the Lions, just as England have done with Steve Harmison? He has been woefully out of form, certainly, but if Strauss or Cook were to get injured, who would England call upon as an emergency opener? Would Stephen Moore or Joe Denly (both selected for the Lions) really have a chance of making their Test debuts in the Ashes?
Overall, the squads are hard to overly quibble with. Leaving Harmison out the 16-man squad but allowing him a crack at Australia for the Lions is surely a good move. It is intriguing that Ian Bell has been selected as captain for the Lions - but it could be the making of him.
There is, however, a whiff of Worcestershire bias about the Lions side which will take on the Aussies at Worcester. Vikram Solanki has no chance of playing for England again. He should not have been preferred to Vaughan or especially Owais Shah. Shah's face seemingly does not fit. There are doubts over his Test match temperament, of course, but playing him for the Lions would be a low-risk way of assessing his qualities. He is considerably more likely to play for England again that Solanki, so Solanki's selection just seems like a waste of a spot. Steven Davies's selection ahead of Messrs Foster and Ambrose is slightly surprising, but he is averaging 43 in Division One this season and actually played for England as recently as March.
The spin issue remains as confusing as ever. Before the squads were announced, many felt England would allow Panesar, who the Aussies have seen before, to play for the Lions, while keeping new leg-spinner Rashid 'hidden' for England against Warwickshire. Instead, they have gone down the opposite path. Panesar is hopelessly out of form and should not play in the first Test. If Rashid does well for the Lions, perhaps he will get his first Test cap in the first game of the 2009 Ashes.
Showing posts with label Steve Harmison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Harmison. Show all posts
Monday, 22 June 2009
Friday, 9 January 2009
England's Ashes ladder
With the 2009 Ashes only six months away, who can expect to play a part for England? Each player has been ranked according to who is most likely to play in the series, from most likely to 25th.
1) Andrew Strauss
The new skipper has returned to form and England will be after some stability at last.
2) Andrew Flintoff
The obvious caveat is injury. But he has responded leaner and fitter since his comeback. His bowling, at least, is as good as ever.
3) Alastair Cook
Indicative of the malaise in the England side, even number three is not quite a certainty. But he did well against the West Indies before and, having invested so much time, England are very unlikely to dump him prior to the Ashes.
4) Kevin Pietersen
Pietersen, surely, would not miss this for the world. But if he plays the IPL instead of the West Indies home series, he might just have to.
5) Matt Prior
May appear a little high for someone whose current Test stint has lasted just two games, but Prior is a fine batsman, vital with England seemingly favouring the five-man attack that served them so well in 2005. Whether they are right to remains another matter.
6) Stuart Broad
A man averaging 45 with the ball in Tests should not be this high. But, with doubts over so many bowlers, his excellent batting makes his selection very likely for the balance of the side.
7) Paul Collingwood
Forever fighting for his place, but Collingwood has hit two hundreds in his last four Tests. His grit is such that England would like him to play, but worrys over his troubesome shoulder - and batting technique - linger.
8) Steve Harmison
Conditional upon him reproducing something like his Durham form in the West Indies. But on his day Harmie the attributes to strike fear into batsmen. Despite his disastrous last Ashes, Australis would probably sooner face James Anderson.
9) Graeme Swann
Monty Panesar's decline is becoming increasingly worrying. The feisty Swann will not be intimidated by the Aussies, should enjoy bowling to their left-handers (who will form at least three of their top six) and will certainly outdo Panesar in his batting and fielding contributions.
10) Ian Bell
Like it or not, Bell has an excellent chance of playing next summer. For all his undeniable class, averages of 25 against Australia - and 19 in his last ten Test innings - suggest England would be better looking elsewhere.
11) James Anderson
It isn't always exactly clear why, but Anderson has played the last 11 Tests. Where swing is expected to play a part then, barring a huge loss of form, he will probably feature.
12) Owais Shah
The perennial drinks-carrier has established himself as England's second best ODI batsman (after Pietersen) but has played just one Test in the three years following his 88 on debut in Mumbai. Not lacking in self-belief and in the form of his life, England must now hand him a run in the side. May, however, live to rue the ODIs coming after, rather than before, the Tests.
13) Monty Panesar
Will be close to selection, if he is not actually in the final XI. If only he could regain his joie de vivre and appear more comfortable thinking on his feet.
14) Simon Jones
Why does a man who has not played for England in almost four years feature so highly? Frankly, it's hard to see which other quicks possess more of a threat. Took 42 wickets at 18 last summer and should have played the Second Test against South Africa, Jones need only have a few good first-class games before the calls from for his inclusion. The king of reverse-swing will not play all five Tests, but, fitness - as ever - permitting, has a very good chance of playing a couple of games. Temptation to pick him will be mighty strong.
15) Ryan Sidebottom
It seems incredible to think now, but in 2008 Sidebottom claimed 47 Test wickets (mainly Kiwi) at just 20 apiece. Has since been ravaged by injuries, however, and has not featured since limping through the Edgbaston Test. But will do everything in his power to come back.
16) Michael Vaughan
Not recalled for the West Indies tour but if he can finally get some runs for Yorkshire he will become, at least, first reserve in the event of a top-three injury or critical loss of form. One last crack at the Aussies and into the sunset?
17) Adil Rashid
As long as he continues his impressive progress, he has a good chance of making an appearance, especially at The Oval and especially if England are struggling.
18) Amjad Khan
A late call-up for the India tour, Khan can generate reverse-swing and has a fine first-class pedigree. Could be finding favour at just the right time.
19) Tim Ambrose
Still the second choice Test keeper, apparently, though no one is quite sure why. But few would fancy his chances of scoring runs next summer. James Foster, in particular, would feel aggrieved if Ambrose is preferred.
20) Ravi Bopara
So far the hype has nowhere near lived up to the international performances. But he remains a talented player and his ODI appearances should keep him in the frame.
21) Robert Key
Passed over for the England captaincy, Key had a bad season for Kent last year at the worst possible time. But he is nonetheless a fine player - England could do much worse.
22) Kabir Ali
Has been in superb form for several seasons - but didn't even make the Lions squad. A far better bowler than when he last played for England - but just doesn't seem to tick the selectorial boxes. Perhaps the new regime will see differently.
23) Matthew Hoggard
It's not going to happen - and an average of 39.72 in his last 13 Tests says why. But a Test at Headingley will keep him hoping.
24) Chris Tremlett
Has seemingly vanished completely from view, and worries about his fitness and temperament have put his impressive series against India three summers ago to the back of everyone's mind.
25) Mark Ramprakash
'Failed' in only averaging 60 last season; a two-match disciplinary suspension hardly helps his case either. But with England's chronic problems at number three his would be an intriguing selection. The romantics should not be hopeful, however.
Bubbling under
Batsmen: Joe Denly, Samit Patel, Eoin Morgan
Keepers: James Foster, Steven Davies
Bowlers: Mark Davies, Sajid Mahmood, Darren Pattinson, Liam Plunkett
Compiling this list, it is striking how few players truly inspire confidence. The fast bowling area is particularly problematic. And I should add that I have been trying to read the selectors' minds - this is what I think their list would look like, not what my list would be.
1) Andrew Strauss
The new skipper has returned to form and England will be after some stability at last.
2) Andrew Flintoff
The obvious caveat is injury. But he has responded leaner and fitter since his comeback. His bowling, at least, is as good as ever.
3) Alastair Cook
Indicative of the malaise in the England side, even number three is not quite a certainty. But he did well against the West Indies before and, having invested so much time, England are very unlikely to dump him prior to the Ashes.
4) Kevin Pietersen
Pietersen, surely, would not miss this for the world. But if he plays the IPL instead of the West Indies home series, he might just have to.
5) Matt Prior
May appear a little high for someone whose current Test stint has lasted just two games, but Prior is a fine batsman, vital with England seemingly favouring the five-man attack that served them so well in 2005. Whether they are right to remains another matter.
6) Stuart Broad
A man averaging 45 with the ball in Tests should not be this high. But, with doubts over so many bowlers, his excellent batting makes his selection very likely for the balance of the side.
7) Paul Collingwood
Forever fighting for his place, but Collingwood has hit two hundreds in his last four Tests. His grit is such that England would like him to play, but worrys over his troubesome shoulder - and batting technique - linger.
8) Steve Harmison
Conditional upon him reproducing something like his Durham form in the West Indies. But on his day Harmie the attributes to strike fear into batsmen. Despite his disastrous last Ashes, Australis would probably sooner face James Anderson.
9) Graeme Swann
Monty Panesar's decline is becoming increasingly worrying. The feisty Swann will not be intimidated by the Aussies, should enjoy bowling to their left-handers (who will form at least three of their top six) and will certainly outdo Panesar in his batting and fielding contributions.
10) Ian Bell
Like it or not, Bell has an excellent chance of playing next summer. For all his undeniable class, averages of 25 against Australia - and 19 in his last ten Test innings - suggest England would be better looking elsewhere.
11) James Anderson
It isn't always exactly clear why, but Anderson has played the last 11 Tests. Where swing is expected to play a part then, barring a huge loss of form, he will probably feature.
12) Owais Shah
The perennial drinks-carrier has established himself as England's second best ODI batsman (after Pietersen) but has played just one Test in the three years following his 88 on debut in Mumbai. Not lacking in self-belief and in the form of his life, England must now hand him a run in the side. May, however, live to rue the ODIs coming after, rather than before, the Tests.
13) Monty Panesar
Will be close to selection, if he is not actually in the final XI. If only he could regain his joie de vivre and appear more comfortable thinking on his feet.
14) Simon Jones
Why does a man who has not played for England in almost four years feature so highly? Frankly, it's hard to see which other quicks possess more of a threat. Took 42 wickets at 18 last summer and should have played the Second Test against South Africa, Jones need only have a few good first-class games before the calls from for his inclusion. The king of reverse-swing will not play all five Tests, but, fitness - as ever - permitting, has a very good chance of playing a couple of games. Temptation to pick him will be mighty strong.
15) Ryan Sidebottom
It seems incredible to think now, but in 2008 Sidebottom claimed 47 Test wickets (mainly Kiwi) at just 20 apiece. Has since been ravaged by injuries, however, and has not featured since limping through the Edgbaston Test. But will do everything in his power to come back.
16) Michael Vaughan
Not recalled for the West Indies tour but if he can finally get some runs for Yorkshire he will become, at least, first reserve in the event of a top-three injury or critical loss of form. One last crack at the Aussies and into the sunset?
17) Adil Rashid
As long as he continues his impressive progress, he has a good chance of making an appearance, especially at The Oval and especially if England are struggling.
18) Amjad Khan
A late call-up for the India tour, Khan can generate reverse-swing and has a fine first-class pedigree. Could be finding favour at just the right time.
19) Tim Ambrose
Still the second choice Test keeper, apparently, though no one is quite sure why. But few would fancy his chances of scoring runs next summer. James Foster, in particular, would feel aggrieved if Ambrose is preferred.
20) Ravi Bopara
So far the hype has nowhere near lived up to the international performances. But he remains a talented player and his ODI appearances should keep him in the frame.
21) Robert Key
Passed over for the England captaincy, Key had a bad season for Kent last year at the worst possible time. But he is nonetheless a fine player - England could do much worse.
22) Kabir Ali
Has been in superb form for several seasons - but didn't even make the Lions squad. A far better bowler than when he last played for England - but just doesn't seem to tick the selectorial boxes. Perhaps the new regime will see differently.
23) Matthew Hoggard
It's not going to happen - and an average of 39.72 in his last 13 Tests says why. But a Test at Headingley will keep him hoping.
24) Chris Tremlett
Has seemingly vanished completely from view, and worries about his fitness and temperament have put his impressive series against India three summers ago to the back of everyone's mind.
25) Mark Ramprakash
'Failed' in only averaging 60 last season; a two-match disciplinary suspension hardly helps his case either. But with England's chronic problems at number three his would be an intriguing selection. The romantics should not be hopeful, however.
Bubbling under
Batsmen: Joe Denly, Samit Patel, Eoin Morgan
Keepers: James Foster, Steven Davies
Bowlers: Mark Davies, Sajid Mahmood, Darren Pattinson, Liam Plunkett
Compiling this list, it is striking how few players truly inspire confidence. The fast bowling area is particularly problematic. And I should add that I have been trying to read the selectors' minds - this is what I think their list would look like, not what my list would be.
Friday, 19 December 2008
England must keep the faith, for now at least
After being dropped in New Zealand last winter many thought Steve Harmison had played his last game for England. But he responded magnificiently for Durham; and, had England recalled him earlier, the Test series against South Africa could conceivably have ended differently. Indicative of his new-found zest for playing for England, he even reversed his decision to retire from ODIs - the single act which had most enraged his critics, led by Bob Willis.
Yet in the four months since his recall, Harmison has already managed to be dropped from the ODI and Test side alike. However, it would be grossly premature to say he is in an equally grim position to in New Zealand. His performance in the last Test was respectable enough, save for suffering at the brilliant Virender Sehwag's hands (and how different the game would have been had Sehwag not been dropped of Harmison's bowling). I would have sooner dropped James Anderson, enduring yet another miserable tour.
In the West Indies, Harmison remains almost certain to play in the first Test. It was there five years ago that he begun his meteoric rise to the world number one spot. For all his faults, he remains England's most fearsome quick when at his best (save perhaps for Simon Jones). England must keep the faith, for the series in the Caribbean at least. Ultimately, Australia's opening batsmen would much sooner line up against Anderson or even Broad than a revved-up Harmison.
Yet in the four months since his recall, Harmison has already managed to be dropped from the ODI and Test side alike. However, it would be grossly premature to say he is in an equally grim position to in New Zealand. His performance in the last Test was respectable enough, save for suffering at the brilliant Virender Sehwag's hands (and how different the game would have been had Sehwag not been dropped of Harmison's bowling). I would have sooner dropped James Anderson, enduring yet another miserable tour.
In the West Indies, Harmison remains almost certain to play in the first Test. It was there five years ago that he begun his meteoric rise to the world number one spot. For all his faults, he remains England's most fearsome quick when at his best (save perhaps for Simon Jones). England must keep the faith, for the series in the Caribbean at least. Ultimately, Australia's opening batsmen would much sooner line up against Anderson or even Broad than a revved-up Harmison.
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
2008 Season Review: Durham
Continuing our season reviews, 'Durhamfootman' offers an assesment of Durham's triumphant campaign.
Final placings:
Championship Div 1 - Winners
FP Trophy - Semi-finalists
Twenty20 Cup - Semi-finalists
Pro 40 Div 1 - 3rd place
After the euphoria of 2007 and the club’s first piece of silverware, it was always going to be hard to live up to the expectations, some of it optimistic, of its supporters in 2008. Yet that is precisely what Durham did, by winning their maiden county championship title, just 16 years after gaining first-class status.
The central core of Durham’s success lay in its seam attack. The loss of Ottis Gibson was always going to be difficult to overcome, but England, in their wisdom, saw fit to provide the solution, by dropping Steve Harmison from the test team.
Harmison, with a point to prove, set about demolishing division 1 batting line-ups with vigour. Re-discovered rhythm, pace and accuracy saw him return figures of 60 wickets at an average of 22, ably supported by Callum Thorp (50 @ 19s) and Mark Davies (39 @ 15s). A less successful season for Plunkett and Onions, both suffered from injury problems and struggled to get going, once fit. More will be expected from them next season, once Harmison returns to the England fold.
Ben Harmison made steady, if not spectacular, progress with the ball, but was found a little wanting, with the bat. Nevertheless he has shown that he may well have the ability to play a bigger role in 2009. Spin has never been one of Durham’s strong suits, but Paul Wiseman was an ever-present, chipping in with 16 wickets and scoring some very useful runs. Gareth Breese had limited CC opportunities, yet averaged 184 in the final two games of the season. Reason enough, I think, to thank him for.
The batting department was less successful. Batting collapses were an all too familiar feature of Durham’s season, without ever proving truly fatal. DiVenuto (1058 runs) and captain, Benkenstein, (783 runs) were the bedrock of the batting line-up and the team’s reliance on them, in the early part of the season, at times bordered on the embarrassing.
The introduction of Will Smith steadied the ship and he chipped in with 925 runs from 12 matches, which included 3 big hundreds, one a double hundred, and 3 fifties. Fortunately for Durham, of those three players, only one of them was ever out of form, at any one time.
The overseas players did little to rectify the batting imbalance, McKenzie was poor and Chanderpaul only came good towards the end of the campaign. Phil Mustard failed to improve on his 26 average from 2007, but his final innings 84, helped get Durham over the line. The fact that Durham secured 8 batting points less than Surrey, is probably a ‘flattering’ reflection on Durham’s batting. This will need to be addressed for the 2009 season.
Durham were able to make a determined defence of their FP title, losing out to Kent in the semi-final. They established themselves in the Pro 40 division 1, after promotion last term, finishing a creditable 3rd. The biggest improvement came in the Twenty20 cup, where Durham’s record of being the worst county in T20 cricket was redressed with a maiden appearance (albeit woeful) at Twenty20 finals day.
2009 will be an interesting season. Benkenstein looks set to relinquish the captaincy, but is likely to remain Durham’s most influential player. Harmison will be a big loss. The contracts of some senior players will end next year, which is likely to lead to some retirements.
The challenge for Durham will be to continue with the development of its young players like Harmison jnr, Stoneman, Smith, Coetzer, Muchall and Park, all of whom have now got first team experience. These are the players who must step up and be ready to fill the places that will be left in 2010 by DiVenuto and the, poorly selected, overseas batsmen. Hopefully Durham will then be able to acquire the services of a world class spinner. It is now time for the team that convincingly won the 2nd XI Championship, to lead Durham's 1st XI to further success, in the coming seasons.
Player of the Season:
Probably a toss up between Harmison and Smith
Most Disappointing Player:
Neil McKenzie
Highlight:
Stupid question
Lowlight:
Twenty20 Cup semi-final
If you're interested in writing a season review for your county, please email it cricketingworld@hotmail.com
Final placings:
Championship Div 1 - Winners
FP Trophy - Semi-finalists
Twenty20 Cup - Semi-finalists
Pro 40 Div 1 - 3rd place
After the euphoria of 2007 and the club’s first piece of silverware, it was always going to be hard to live up to the expectations, some of it optimistic, of its supporters in 2008. Yet that is precisely what Durham did, by winning their maiden county championship title, just 16 years after gaining first-class status.
The central core of Durham’s success lay in its seam attack. The loss of Ottis Gibson was always going to be difficult to overcome, but England, in their wisdom, saw fit to provide the solution, by dropping Steve Harmison from the test team.
Harmison, with a point to prove, set about demolishing division 1 batting line-ups with vigour. Re-discovered rhythm, pace and accuracy saw him return figures of 60 wickets at an average of 22, ably supported by Callum Thorp (50 @ 19s) and Mark Davies (39 @ 15s). A less successful season for Plunkett and Onions, both suffered from injury problems and struggled to get going, once fit. More will be expected from them next season, once Harmison returns to the England fold.
Ben Harmison made steady, if not spectacular, progress with the ball, but was found a little wanting, with the bat. Nevertheless he has shown that he may well have the ability to play a bigger role in 2009. Spin has never been one of Durham’s strong suits, but Paul Wiseman was an ever-present, chipping in with 16 wickets and scoring some very useful runs. Gareth Breese had limited CC opportunities, yet averaged 184 in the final two games of the season. Reason enough, I think, to thank him for.
The batting department was less successful. Batting collapses were an all too familiar feature of Durham’s season, without ever proving truly fatal. DiVenuto (1058 runs) and captain, Benkenstein, (783 runs) were the bedrock of the batting line-up and the team’s reliance on them, in the early part of the season, at times bordered on the embarrassing.
The introduction of Will Smith steadied the ship and he chipped in with 925 runs from 12 matches, which included 3 big hundreds, one a double hundred, and 3 fifties. Fortunately for Durham, of those three players, only one of them was ever out of form, at any one time.
The overseas players did little to rectify the batting imbalance, McKenzie was poor and Chanderpaul only came good towards the end of the campaign. Phil Mustard failed to improve on his 26 average from 2007, but his final innings 84, helped get Durham over the line. The fact that Durham secured 8 batting points less than Surrey, is probably a ‘flattering’ reflection on Durham’s batting. This will need to be addressed for the 2009 season.
Durham were able to make a determined defence of their FP title, losing out to Kent in the semi-final. They established themselves in the Pro 40 division 1, after promotion last term, finishing a creditable 3rd. The biggest improvement came in the Twenty20 cup, where Durham’s record of being the worst county in T20 cricket was redressed with a maiden appearance (albeit woeful) at Twenty20 finals day.
2009 will be an interesting season. Benkenstein looks set to relinquish the captaincy, but is likely to remain Durham’s most influential player. Harmison will be a big loss. The contracts of some senior players will end next year, which is likely to lead to some retirements.
The challenge for Durham will be to continue with the development of its young players like Harmison jnr, Stoneman, Smith, Coetzer, Muchall and Park, all of whom have now got first team experience. These are the players who must step up and be ready to fill the places that will be left in 2010 by DiVenuto and the, poorly selected, overseas batsmen. Hopefully Durham will then be able to acquire the services of a world class spinner. It is now time for the team that convincingly won the 2nd XI Championship, to lead Durham's 1st XI to further success, in the coming seasons.
Player of the Season:
Probably a toss up between Harmison and Smith
Most Disappointing Player:
Neil McKenzie
Highlight:
Stupid question
Lowlight:
Twenty20 Cup semi-final
If you're interested in writing a season review for your county, please email it cricketingworld@hotmail.com
Sunday, 28 September 2008
2008 County Awards
While it didn't quite match the sheer last-gasp drama of the 2007 County Championship, the '08 one still had an extraordinary ending, with three sides harbouring hopes of winning it until well into he final game. And, such was the competition's tightness, that Kent went from favourites to being relegated in all of nine days.
Of course, the dreadful weather played a huge pat in ensuring such a tight race. Still, there was much to saviour, with Durham's maiden championship just rewards for a county consisting of quality players from overseas and a plethora of home-grown talent.
(These are based on all county cricket, but with an emphasis on the Championship and especially Division One).
Best player: Hard to look beyond Steve Harmison, though Ravi Bopara comes close. After his humiliation in New Zealand, his comeback was quite stunning. The third highest wicket-taker in Division One - perhaps not much of a surprise. But the manner in which he improved his consistency and subtlty to take 35 one-day wickets - no one managed more - was testament to his desire for self-improvement. It was fitting that he wrapped up the championship with a spectacular spell of three wickets in four balls.
Best batsman:
Oddly, no stands out: Mark Ramprakash had a disappointing season by his Herculenean standards, but still finished top of the Division One averages. But Murray Goodwin, a player who oozes class in all he does, deserves the accolade.
Best bowler:
Harmison.
Best performance: Martin van Jaarsveld had what can only be described as the perfect game during Kent's turnaround victory at The Oval. Two unbeaten centuries, leading his side to a testing run-chase victory, and 5/33 with his very occasional offspin. Simply phenomenal.
Most astonishing win: Sussex stealing the Pro40 crown at Trent Bridge, when they required 97 from 10 overs with just two wickets remaining. But in Goodwin, they have a man of exraordinarily cool temperament - as well as all the shots. With Mohammad Sami providing fine support, he got it down to 16 off the last over - and won the title with a final-ball six.
Most influential player: Imran Tahir was an ignominious failure for Yorkshire last season but revitalised Hampshire's season with his leg-spin. 44 wickets at 16 turned a sinking ship into, briefly, title contenders.
Best comeback (1): The season was awash with them, led by Harmison. But, though his season ended in another injury, Simon Jones's 42 scalps - at 18 apiece - showed that he could well still have an England future.
Best comeback (2): Tony Frost was meant to be on he Warwickshire groundstaff this season. Instead he answered an SOS when Tim Ambrose was wanted by England. He hit 1000 first-runs runs at 83: not too shabby.
Worst overseas signing: Shoaib Akhtar, half-fit and at a five-figure expense for one wicket in two innings defeats. An embarassment, much like the club he played for.
Most under-rated players: Harmison got the plaudits, and rightly so, but Mark Davies and Calum Thorp deserve them too. Starting the season in the Durham 2nds, they took 91 wickets at 18 between them: stunning, and enough to leave one-time England prospects Plunkett and Onions carrying the drinks.
Biggest chockers: Nottinghamshire should have done the double. But Sussex' jaw-dropping snatching of the Pro40 crown, and a feeble collapse against Hampshire, when they were on course to build a decisive first-innings lead, meant they ended with nothing. And Chris Read, so admirable as skipper, will have those believing this is further evidence he is a man who does not relish pressure.
What are your thoughts on this campaign? Share your views by leaving a comment below.
If you're interested in writing a season review for your county, please email it cricketingworld@hotmail.com.
Of course, the dreadful weather played a huge pat in ensuring such a tight race. Still, there was much to saviour, with Durham's maiden championship just rewards for a county consisting of quality players from overseas and a plethora of home-grown talent.
(These are based on all county cricket, but with an emphasis on the Championship and especially Division One).
Best player: Hard to look beyond Steve Harmison, though Ravi Bopara comes close. After his humiliation in New Zealand, his comeback was quite stunning. The third highest wicket-taker in Division One - perhaps not much of a surprise. But the manner in which he improved his consistency and subtlty to take 35 one-day wickets - no one managed more - was testament to his desire for self-improvement. It was fitting that he wrapped up the championship with a spectacular spell of three wickets in four balls.
Best batsman:
Oddly, no stands out: Mark Ramprakash had a disappointing season by his Herculenean standards, but still finished top of the Division One averages. But Murray Goodwin, a player who oozes class in all he does, deserves the accolade.
Best bowler:
Harmison.
Best performance: Martin van Jaarsveld had what can only be described as the perfect game during Kent's turnaround victory at The Oval. Two unbeaten centuries, leading his side to a testing run-chase victory, and 5/33 with his very occasional offspin. Simply phenomenal.
Most astonishing win: Sussex stealing the Pro40 crown at Trent Bridge, when they required 97 from 10 overs with just two wickets remaining. But in Goodwin, they have a man of exraordinarily cool temperament - as well as all the shots. With Mohammad Sami providing fine support, he got it down to 16 off the last over - and won the title with a final-ball six.
Most influential player: Imran Tahir was an ignominious failure for Yorkshire last season but revitalised Hampshire's season with his leg-spin. 44 wickets at 16 turned a sinking ship into, briefly, title contenders.
Best comeback (1): The season was awash with them, led by Harmison. But, though his season ended in another injury, Simon Jones's 42 scalps - at 18 apiece - showed that he could well still have an England future.
Best comeback (2): Tony Frost was meant to be on he Warwickshire groundstaff this season. Instead he answered an SOS when Tim Ambrose was wanted by England. He hit 1000 first-runs runs at 83: not too shabby.
Worst overseas signing: Shoaib Akhtar, half-fit and at a five-figure expense for one wicket in two innings defeats. An embarassment, much like the club he played for.
Most under-rated players: Harmison got the plaudits, and rightly so, but Mark Davies and Calum Thorp deserve them too. Starting the season in the Durham 2nds, they took 91 wickets at 18 between them: stunning, and enough to leave one-time England prospects Plunkett and Onions carrying the drinks.
Biggest chockers: Nottinghamshire should have done the double. But Sussex' jaw-dropping snatching of the Pro40 crown, and a feeble collapse against Hampshire, when they were on course to build a decisive first-innings lead, meant they ended with nothing. And Chris Read, so admirable as skipper, will have those believing this is further evidence he is a man who does not relish pressure.
What are your thoughts on this campaign? Share your views by leaving a comment below.
If you're interested in writing a season review for your county, please email it cricketingworld@hotmail.com.
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
Championship Review – Week 19
Shock new leaders of Division 1, while the top of the table clash is a damp affair. In Division 2 Worcestershire have to wait as the Cardiff monsoon season continues.
Division 1
A couple of weeks ago the Hampshire against Surrey match would have been seen as a crucial relegation battle. Indeed, it was only three weeks ago that Hants were in the relegation zone. However, they are now on a roll and continued their good form, scoring 480 for 8 declared, Nic Pothas getting an unbeaten 137 and Dimitri Mascarenhas falling one short of a ton. Surrey struggled to 210 in reply, Mark Ramprakash top scoring (inevitably) and did even worse following on with just 148. Hampshire ran out victors by an innings and move to the top of the table, although they have played a game more than the other seven teams that are still in the hunt. Surrey are all but relegated despite having the best batsman in Division 1.
The billed “top of the table clash” came at Taunton where Somerset batted first against Durham and managed just 224, Steve Harmison continuing his good form with a 5-fer. Durham made sure of maximum batting points before declaring seven wickets down, Mike di Venuto getting a ton and Shiv Chanderpaul making 92. Starting their second innings 176 behind, an unbeaten Justin Langer century and some wet weather ensured that Somerset came away with the draw to remain above Durham in 2nd.
Now I did say at the beginning of the season that this would be tight and with two sets of matches to go and just four points separate the top 4, although Hants have played an extra game. Even Yorkshire in 8th are not mathematically out of it. At the bottom, it’s just as tight and the Lancs - Kent match this week could have a huge bearing on the final standings.
Division 2
A win against struggling Glamorgan would have sent Worcestershire up. Staring at the rain for four days didn’t do either team any favours and while I hear that Cardiff is a good place to go out, Worcester would have rather tied up their promotion.
With Warwickshire having a planned week off and Worcester a forced one, Northamptonshire and Essex had a chance to make up ground in their promotion push. The weather got in the way of this game too, so having bowled Nothants out for 304, Essex declared on 256 for 2 to try to force a result. James Foster and Mark Pettini then bowled 24 overs as Northants declared on 251 for 1 (a wicket for Foster) to leave Essex needing 300 for victory. It was all in vain as only 16 overs were possible before the weather struck again with Essex on 60 for 3. The result hits Northants hardest who have played one more game than everyone else, while Essex take on Warwickshire in a massive match this week.
Leicestershire and Gloucestershire also tried forcing a result despite the weather and neither team having a lot riding on the game. Kadeer Ali scored a ton as Gloucester made 281, Garnett Kruger taking five wickets. Leicester then declared on 169 for 4, Josh Cobb making an unbeaten 50. Declaration bowling (including four overs for Paul Nixon) got Gloucester to a quick 198 for 4 leaving Leicester needing 310. Four quick wickets had Gloucester in the hunt but Cobb and Nixon saw Leicester to safety and Gloucester are still winless in the championship.
England Player watch
Dimitri Mascarenhas put the disappointment of missing out of the Stanford match behind him with 99 and five wickets in the match, outbowling Chris Tremlett who took 3 wickets. Steve Harmison also showed good form with the ball taking seven of the twelve Somerset wickets to fall. Ravi Bopara also had a good allround game with three wickets and an unbeaten 65 in the first innings.
Player of the Week
Good performances from Kadeer Ali , Mike di Venuto, Josh Cobb and Steve Harmison. However, this has almost become an exclusive Hampshire award over the past few weeks and that probably explains their charge up the table. As much for his captaincy in turning the season around from the turmoil at the start of the year as much as the 99 runs and five top order wickets, the player of the week is Dimitri Mascarenhas.
Division 1
A couple of weeks ago the Hampshire against Surrey match would have been seen as a crucial relegation battle. Indeed, it was only three weeks ago that Hants were in the relegation zone. However, they are now on a roll and continued their good form, scoring 480 for 8 declared, Nic Pothas getting an unbeaten 137 and Dimitri Mascarenhas falling one short of a ton. Surrey struggled to 210 in reply, Mark Ramprakash top scoring (inevitably) and did even worse following on with just 148. Hampshire ran out victors by an innings and move to the top of the table, although they have played a game more than the other seven teams that are still in the hunt. Surrey are all but relegated despite having the best batsman in Division 1.
The billed “top of the table clash” came at Taunton where Somerset batted first against Durham and managed just 224, Steve Harmison continuing his good form with a 5-fer. Durham made sure of maximum batting points before declaring seven wickets down, Mike di Venuto getting a ton and Shiv Chanderpaul making 92. Starting their second innings 176 behind, an unbeaten Justin Langer century and some wet weather ensured that Somerset came away with the draw to remain above Durham in 2nd.
Now I did say at the beginning of the season that this would be tight and with two sets of matches to go and just four points separate the top 4, although Hants have played an extra game. Even Yorkshire in 8th are not mathematically out of it. At the bottom, it’s just as tight and the Lancs - Kent match this week could have a huge bearing on the final standings.
Division 2
A win against struggling Glamorgan would have sent Worcestershire up. Staring at the rain for four days didn’t do either team any favours and while I hear that Cardiff is a good place to go out, Worcester would have rather tied up their promotion.
With Warwickshire having a planned week off and Worcester a forced one, Northamptonshire and Essex had a chance to make up ground in their promotion push. The weather got in the way of this game too, so having bowled Nothants out for 304, Essex declared on 256 for 2 to try to force a result. James Foster and Mark Pettini then bowled 24 overs as Northants declared on 251 for 1 (a wicket for Foster) to leave Essex needing 300 for victory. It was all in vain as only 16 overs were possible before the weather struck again with Essex on 60 for 3. The result hits Northants hardest who have played one more game than everyone else, while Essex take on Warwickshire in a massive match this week.
Leicestershire and Gloucestershire also tried forcing a result despite the weather and neither team having a lot riding on the game. Kadeer Ali scored a ton as Gloucester made 281, Garnett Kruger taking five wickets. Leicester then declared on 169 for 4, Josh Cobb making an unbeaten 50. Declaration bowling (including four overs for Paul Nixon) got Gloucester to a quick 198 for 4 leaving Leicester needing 310. Four quick wickets had Gloucester in the hunt but Cobb and Nixon saw Leicester to safety and Gloucester are still winless in the championship.
England Player watch
Dimitri Mascarenhas put the disappointment of missing out of the Stanford match behind him with 99 and five wickets in the match, outbowling Chris Tremlett who took 3 wickets. Steve Harmison also showed good form with the ball taking seven of the twelve Somerset wickets to fall. Ravi Bopara also had a good allround game with three wickets and an unbeaten 65 in the first innings.
Player of the Week
Good performances from Kadeer Ali , Mike di Venuto, Josh Cobb and Steve Harmison. However, this has almost become an exclusive Hampshire award over the past few weeks and that probably explains their charge up the table. As much for his captaincy in turning the season around from the turmoil at the start of the year as much as the 99 runs and five top order wickets, the player of the week is Dimitri Mascarenhas.
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
What can't King Kev do?
Well, what to make of that?
England beat South Africa in the first ODI - impressive enough. But to obliterate them in the second was an extraordinary display. After all the false dawns, can we finally say England's one-day side are making progress?
Kevin Pietersen can seemingly do no wrong as captain: he has succeeded in reinvigorating a side who, following Michael Vaughan's tear-leaden resignation, appeared close to crisis point. It remains to be seen whether he can make the sides consistently successful, but, suddenly, the one-day outfit has been transformed into one of the most powerful line-ups around.
Since the defeat to New Zealand, three players - Matt Prior, Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison - have returned to the side, and each has performed outstandingly to date.
With Flintoff and Harmison providing the middle-over penetration England have perennially lacked, the bowling line-up is powerful indeed. Stuart Broad today produced his best showing to date, and has been a consistent one-day performer, unlike in Tests. Conversely James Anderson, once regarded as worth his place only in the limited-overs side, has discovered consistency in Tests but seems to have regressed in ODIs. His figures over his last 18 games are damning indeed: 13 wickets at averages (56.61) and economy rates (5.37) that are unacceptable. If he does not improve in the remaining three ODIs, England should look elsewhere: at Ryan Sidebottom, who has proved a canny one-day operator with variations aplenty; or Kabir Ali, in outstanding form for Worcestershire for the last two years.
Prior has, so far, outperformed Tim Ambrose and Phil Mustard, keeping surprisingly well and batting assertively at the top of the order. While he certainly deserves a place in the side, there may be a case for replacing Luke Wright with a specialist opener (Rob Key, Joe Denly or Vikram Solanki) and moving him down to Wright's slot at seven.
Doubts persist over the suitability of Ian Bell opening - he has all the shots, but too often fails to be assertive - and Owais Shah at three. Shah performed superbly against New Zealand batting at six, but may prove a little vulnerable to the moving ball early on. Ideally, he would bat at four or five, but with Pietersen and Flintoff settled there and Paul Collingwood at number six, he should be given an extended run at three. Providing he is free to express himself, Shah should prove capable there.
From four to six England's batting has an imperious look. The remaining selectorial issues concern numbers seven and eight. Wright is on the periphery of the side, but at least provides true destructive, game-changing potential at seven - unlike Ravi Bopara, who is not comfortable attacking from the off. Perhaps the experience and phenomenal six-hitting ability of Dimitri Mascarenhas - also probably the best bowler of the three - is the best option.
Samit Patel has started promisingly - but England may be better off choosing their best spinner, Graeme Swann, who has shown he is an attacking off-spinner and has played some fine innings at number eight. It is ironic that Swann, who many felt was selected over Monty Panesar for his three-dimensional game, has now seen the same fate befall him.
Under King Kevn's reign, England have the tools at their disposal to, finally, establish themselves as a one-day force. They have a brilliant middle-order, bat deep and have a fine, four-pronged pace attack. More work needs to be done - but it is a long time since England's ODI side has had such a convincing look.
England beat South Africa in the first ODI - impressive enough. But to obliterate them in the second was an extraordinary display. After all the false dawns, can we finally say England's one-day side are making progress?
Kevin Pietersen can seemingly do no wrong as captain: he has succeeded in reinvigorating a side who, following Michael Vaughan's tear-leaden resignation, appeared close to crisis point. It remains to be seen whether he can make the sides consistently successful, but, suddenly, the one-day outfit has been transformed into one of the most powerful line-ups around.
Since the defeat to New Zealand, three players - Matt Prior, Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison - have returned to the side, and each has performed outstandingly to date.
With Flintoff and Harmison providing the middle-over penetration England have perennially lacked, the bowling line-up is powerful indeed. Stuart Broad today produced his best showing to date, and has been a consistent one-day performer, unlike in Tests. Conversely James Anderson, once regarded as worth his place only in the limited-overs side, has discovered consistency in Tests but seems to have regressed in ODIs. His figures over his last 18 games are damning indeed: 13 wickets at averages (56.61) and economy rates (5.37) that are unacceptable. If he does not improve in the remaining three ODIs, England should look elsewhere: at Ryan Sidebottom, who has proved a canny one-day operator with variations aplenty; or Kabir Ali, in outstanding form for Worcestershire for the last two years.
Prior has, so far, outperformed Tim Ambrose and Phil Mustard, keeping surprisingly well and batting assertively at the top of the order. While he certainly deserves a place in the side, there may be a case for replacing Luke Wright with a specialist opener (Rob Key, Joe Denly or Vikram Solanki) and moving him down to Wright's slot at seven.
Doubts persist over the suitability of Ian Bell opening - he has all the shots, but too often fails to be assertive - and Owais Shah at three. Shah performed superbly against New Zealand batting at six, but may prove a little vulnerable to the moving ball early on. Ideally, he would bat at four or five, but with Pietersen and Flintoff settled there and Paul Collingwood at number six, he should be given an extended run at three. Providing he is free to express himself, Shah should prove capable there.
From four to six England's batting has an imperious look. The remaining selectorial issues concern numbers seven and eight. Wright is on the periphery of the side, but at least provides true destructive, game-changing potential at seven - unlike Ravi Bopara, who is not comfortable attacking from the off. Perhaps the experience and phenomenal six-hitting ability of Dimitri Mascarenhas - also probably the best bowler of the three - is the best option.
Samit Patel has started promisingly - but England may be better off choosing their best spinner, Graeme Swann, who has shown he is an attacking off-spinner and has played some fine innings at number eight. It is ironic that Swann, who many felt was selected over Monty Panesar for his three-dimensional game, has now seen the same fate befall him.
Under King Kevn's reign, England have the tools at their disposal to, finally, establish themselves as a one-day force. They have a brilliant middle-order, bat deep and have a fine, four-pronged pace attack. More work needs to be done - but it is a long time since England's ODI side has had such a convincing look.
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Why so boring?
Kevin Pietersen's appointment as England captain in all three forms of the game stole the headlines, and rightly so - there was nothing else to talk about. For, while many believe there are profound problems within the set-up, the selectors were incredibly cautious in their squad for The Oval. There was only one change, with Ravi Bopara coming in, and even that was an enforced one.
There will be ample to discuss, as we witness Pietersen's first game as full-time captain. It promises to be nothing but intriguing. Given his lack of captaincy experience, there are so many intangibles that it is hard to make predictions over how he will do, although I am optimistic he will go some way towards reinvigorating the side, imbuing team-mates with vivacity and positivity and leading from the front, even if my first choice would have been Rob Key.
But what is truly astonishing is England's selectors still seem stubbornly in denial over England's problems. This was a golden opportunity to try out the plethora of players challenging for a spot, answer (at least partially) some fundamental selectorial questions and shake up a side that has been struggling for far too long.
My side for The Oval would have been as follows:
Cook
Key
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Harmison
Jones
(With Shah in the squad as reserve batsman. Ideally I would try him instead of Collingwood, but that would be one change too many.)
While I would, in any case, fancy this side to defeat the eleven who played in the last Test, even if they played and lost England would gain much from the match in terms of learning about fringe players.
One Test, especially a dead rubber, cannot tell you about a player's long-term durability at Test level, of course, but it is a start. With a radical shake-up to the side England would be beter able to answer a number of pressing questions, such as
Is Rob Key a beter bet as opener than Andrew Strauss? Given Key's impressive form over the last few seasons and Strauss's lack of a century against anyone other than a depleted New Zealand for two years, I suspect yes.
Can Ian Bell make the number three position his own? He has never made a century there, but he deserves to be given an extended run in what should be his natural position, starting from this Test.
Is Matt Prior a sufficiently good batsman to bat at six? And, more to the point, how much has his keeping improved in the last eight months? At least Prior's correct selection in the limited-overs squad will provide some clues to answering these questions.
Is Graeme Swann's all-round package of more value to England than Monty Panesar's? Averages of 41 with the bat and 25 with the ball in Division One, aided by his fine ODI performances, suggest this could now be the case.
Is Steve Harmison back to his best? Can he be a consistent threat at Test level? England must select him for the 4th Test, and see if Pietersen can help bring the best out of him.
Is Simon Jones good - and fit - enough to thrive in Tests once more? Most suspect the answer to the first question is an emphatic 'yes' but would answer in the negative to the second question. But, in a five-man attack, Jones could bowl, say, four four-over spells a day, being used as a strike-bowler, along with Flintoff. England utilising these two in such a capacity could help both to take 20 wickets and to keep them fit until at least the 2009 Ashes. Of more immediate significance, England will surely want to play five bowlers in India.
As it is, England will learn very little from this Test, save for a little about Pietersen's captaincy skills. It represents a depressing missed opportunity. In the big picture, it doesn't really matter how much England lose this series by. The answers to the above questions, however, are fundamental to how England can improve, but, typically and infuriatingly of the current set-up, too many will remain unasked.
There will be ample to discuss, as we witness Pietersen's first game as full-time captain. It promises to be nothing but intriguing. Given his lack of captaincy experience, there are so many intangibles that it is hard to make predictions over how he will do, although I am optimistic he will go some way towards reinvigorating the side, imbuing team-mates with vivacity and positivity and leading from the front, even if my first choice would have been Rob Key.
But what is truly astonishing is England's selectors still seem stubbornly in denial over England's problems. This was a golden opportunity to try out the plethora of players challenging for a spot, answer (at least partially) some fundamental selectorial questions and shake up a side that has been struggling for far too long.
My side for The Oval would have been as follows:
Cook
Key
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Harmison
Jones
(With Shah in the squad as reserve batsman. Ideally I would try him instead of Collingwood, but that would be one change too many.)
While I would, in any case, fancy this side to defeat the eleven who played in the last Test, even if they played and lost England would gain much from the match in terms of learning about fringe players.
One Test, especially a dead rubber, cannot tell you about a player's long-term durability at Test level, of course, but it is a start. With a radical shake-up to the side England would be beter able to answer a number of pressing questions, such as
Is Rob Key a beter bet as opener than Andrew Strauss? Given Key's impressive form over the last few seasons and Strauss's lack of a century against anyone other than a depleted New Zealand for two years, I suspect yes.
Can Ian Bell make the number three position his own? He has never made a century there, but he deserves to be given an extended run in what should be his natural position, starting from this Test.
Is Matt Prior a sufficiently good batsman to bat at six? And, more to the point, how much has his keeping improved in the last eight months? At least Prior's correct selection in the limited-overs squad will provide some clues to answering these questions.
Is Graeme Swann's all-round package of more value to England than Monty Panesar's? Averages of 41 with the bat and 25 with the ball in Division One, aided by his fine ODI performances, suggest this could now be the case.
Is Steve Harmison back to his best? Can he be a consistent threat at Test level? England must select him for the 4th Test, and see if Pietersen can help bring the best out of him.
Is Simon Jones good - and fit - enough to thrive in Tests once more? Most suspect the answer to the first question is an emphatic 'yes' but would answer in the negative to the second question. But, in a five-man attack, Jones could bowl, say, four four-over spells a day, being used as a strike-bowler, along with Flintoff. England utilising these two in such a capacity could help both to take 20 wickets and to keep them fit until at least the 2009 Ashes. Of more immediate significance, England will surely want to play five bowlers in India.
As it is, England will learn very little from this Test, save for a little about Pietersen's captaincy skills. It represents a depressing missed opportunity. In the big picture, it doesn't really matter how much England lose this series by. The answers to the above questions, however, are fundamental to how England can improve, but, typically and infuriatingly of the current set-up, too many will remain unasked.
Friday, 1 August 2008
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.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
A look ahead to the Friends Provident Trophy semi finals
The Friends Provident semi finalists return to the 50 over format this weekend. Which teams can successfully merge the skills required in the Twenty20 cup and county championship to reach the season’s only Lord’s final?
Durham meet Kent in Friday’s first semi final at Chester-le-Street. Both teams topped their respective divisions and will be in Twenty20 cup quarter final action early next week (indeed, all of the semi finalists have reached the last eight of the shorter format tournament).
Proof that this tournament’s contenders are the country’s limited over specialists and both these teams are equipped to pull off the double. Durham claimed their first ever silverware in winning last year’s Friends Provident trophy and I have been tipping Kent for Twenty20 glory since the season started.
Both won their latest county championship assignments, so there will plenty of players in form on display at the Riverside.
It might be a bowler’s day. There have been plenty of low scoring encounters at Durham recently, including their one wicket win over Nottinghamshire in the quarter finals. Steve Harmison has 16 wickets at 20.87 in the tournament to date and could be the home side’s key man.
Kent’s Yasir Arafat is the tournament’s top wicket taker (22 at 13.45) and he is just one of the Spitfires’ many form allrounders. It is a sign of their strength that their century-hitting hero in the quarter final win over Somerset, Neil Dexter, has been loaned out to Essex.
Kent are a well-drilled One Day outfit and this should be a close contest, with Durham my tip for a final place.
Another north vs. south battle takes place at Chelmsford on Saturday as Yorkshire travel to Essex. Both teams are in the Pro40 second division this season and should be expected to be the hunt for promotion, as they have been consistent limited overs performers this term.
Both enjoyed comfortable quarter final wins. Yorkshire eased past Gloucestershire by six wickets with more than five overs remaining, whilst Essex hammered Leicestershire by 118 runs.
That win at Grace Road was based around one of the great domestic one day performances. Ravi Bopara’s unbeaten 201, made off just 138 balls, was only the eighth double ton in limited overs cricket and makes him the man to watch at the Ford county ground.
Bopara played with the freedom that has eluded him at international level and seems to have inspired his team mates with that knock. Graham Napier found some big-hitting form in the Twenty20 cup and in Ryan ten Doeschate Essex have another form batsman capable of clearing the ropes.
However, their bowling is perhaps too reliant on Danish Kaneria and I expect Yorkshire’s experienced line-up, led by the batting of Jacques Rudolph and Anthony McGrath and the bowling of Tim Bresnan, to edge this one.
Durham meet Kent in Friday’s first semi final at Chester-le-Street. Both teams topped their respective divisions and will be in Twenty20 cup quarter final action early next week (indeed, all of the semi finalists have reached the last eight of the shorter format tournament).
Proof that this tournament’s contenders are the country’s limited over specialists and both these teams are equipped to pull off the double. Durham claimed their first ever silverware in winning last year’s Friends Provident trophy and I have been tipping Kent for Twenty20 glory since the season started.
Both won their latest county championship assignments, so there will plenty of players in form on display at the Riverside.
It might be a bowler’s day. There have been plenty of low scoring encounters at Durham recently, including their one wicket win over Nottinghamshire in the quarter finals. Steve Harmison has 16 wickets at 20.87 in the tournament to date and could be the home side’s key man.
Kent’s Yasir Arafat is the tournament’s top wicket taker (22 at 13.45) and he is just one of the Spitfires’ many form allrounders. It is a sign of their strength that their century-hitting hero in the quarter final win over Somerset, Neil Dexter, has been loaned out to Essex.
Kent are a well-drilled One Day outfit and this should be a close contest, with Durham my tip for a final place.
Another north vs. south battle takes place at Chelmsford on Saturday as Yorkshire travel to Essex. Both teams are in the Pro40 second division this season and should be expected to be the hunt for promotion, as they have been consistent limited overs performers this term.
Both enjoyed comfortable quarter final wins. Yorkshire eased past Gloucestershire by six wickets with more than five overs remaining, whilst Essex hammered Leicestershire by 118 runs.
That win at Grace Road was based around one of the great domestic one day performances. Ravi Bopara’s unbeaten 201, made off just 138 balls, was only the eighth double ton in limited overs cricket and makes him the man to watch at the Ford county ground.
Bopara played with the freedom that has eluded him at international level and seems to have inspired his team mates with that knock. Graham Napier found some big-hitting form in the Twenty20 cup and in Ryan ten Doeschate Essex have another form batsman capable of clearing the ropes.
However, their bowling is perhaps too reliant on Danish Kaneria and I expect Yorkshire’s experienced line-up, led by the batting of Jacques Rudolph and Anthony McGrath and the bowling of Tim Bresnan, to edge this one.
Thursday, 10 April 2008
2008 Season Preview: Durham
Continuing our series of county previews, Rob Dixon assesses Durham's chances in 2008.
2007 in a nutshell
What can you say…it was the year Durham came of age. An Ottis Gibson inspired team led them to both Friends Provident Trophy and Pro 40 Division Two success. They also finished second in County Championship Division One: a ‘Roy of the Rovers’ story for any Durham supporter.
Bowling:
Losing Gibson is a major blow but it has been softened by the fact that Durham might get a full season out of Steve Harmison, his wickets will be crucial for the club as he has quality back up with Liam Plunkett and Graham Onions, both of whom should be pushing for winter tour spots. Mark Davies and Callum Thorp have hopefully got over their injury worries of the past few years and add the ever reliable Neil Killeen and Mitchell Claydon to the mix and Durham have a rich seam of pace bowling options. One thing they do lack, as in recent years, is a quality spinner and should we get a hot summer then they may struggle with only the spin of Gareth Breese and Paul Wiseman
Probable sides:
Championship
Michael Di Venuto
Neil McKenzie / Mark Stoneman after July
Kyle Coetzer
Gordon Muchall / Shivnarine Chanderpaul after July
Dale Benkenstein (c)
Phil Mustard (wk)
Gareth Breese
Liam Plunkett
Graham Onions
Mark Davies
Steve Harmison
2007 in a nutshell
What can you say…it was the year Durham came of age. An Ottis Gibson inspired team led them to both Friends Provident Trophy and Pro 40 Division Two success. They also finished second in County Championship Division One: a ‘Roy of the Rovers’ story for any Durham supporter.
2008 Prospects
It will be tough to repeat what happened in 2007, but they have kept the majority of the side that did so well last year. They have lost Otis Gibson to England management but have managed a major coup in re-signing Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Michael Di Venuto, the latter taking advantage of his Italian passport to qualify as a non-overseas player. Until Chanderpaul’s arrival in July, the club have signed Neil McKenzie to start the season and Albie Morkel will be at the club for the Twenty20 campaign in June.
Batting:
Despite being resigned to losing Collingwood for most of the season with England, the batting looks solid with Di Venuto likely to open the batting with McKenzie at the beginning of the season. Kyle Coetzer came on leaps and bounds last season and will hope to cement his place in the side. Hopefully this will take a bit of pressure of Dale Benkenstein whose runs have been invaluable over the last few years as well as his shrewd captaincy. Phil Mustard will hopefully translate his one-day form to the county game as he has the talent to reach 1000 championship runs
It will be a big year for a few of the other batsman attempting to get in the side. Gordon Muchall is getting to the time now where he has to deliver his undoubted promise. Will Smith and Garry Park are also young batsman hoping to take their chance and Mark Stoneman, who scored his maiden century against Sussex last season, will aim to be the next star of the flourishing Academy system at the Riverside.
Bowling:
Losing Gibson is a major blow but it has been softened by the fact that Durham might get a full season out of Steve Harmison, his wickets will be crucial for the club as he has quality back up with Liam Plunkett and Graham Onions, both of whom should be pushing for winter tour spots. Mark Davies and Callum Thorp have hopefully got over their injury worries of the past few years and add the ever reliable Neil Killeen and Mitchell Claydon to the mix and Durham have a rich seam of pace bowling options. One thing they do lack, as in recent years, is a quality spinner and should we get a hot summer then they may struggle with only the spin of Gareth Breese and Paul Wiseman
Probable sides:
Championship
Michael Di Venuto
Neil McKenzie / Mark Stoneman after July
Kyle Coetzer
Gordon Muchall / Shivnarine Chanderpaul after July
Dale Benkenstein (c)
Phil Mustard (wk)
Gareth Breese
Liam Plunkett
Graham Onions
Mark Davies
Steve Harmison
Pressing for places: Will Smith, Garry Park, Ben Harmison, Mitchell Claydon, Callum Thorp
One-day and Twenty20
Phil Mustard
Michael Di Venuto
Kyle Coetzer
Neil McKenzie / Chanderpaul
Dale Benkenstein
Gordon Muchall
Gareth Breese / Albie Morkel (Twenty20)
Liam Plunkett
Graham Onions
Neil Killeen
Steve Harmison
Key Man:
I’m going for Michael di Venuto. Good starts are invaluable if they are going to challenge for honours and the likeable Aussie (Italian!) will hopefully help that come to fruition. His county record is second to none and despite his advancing years, he will hopefully nurture the young batsmen at the club to better things, as well as continue his high standards.
Rising Star:
Kyle Coetzer showed last year that he is a quality young batsman. A former Scotland U19’s captain, he broke into the side in the middle of last season after a run of decent scores in the 2nd XI. He also scored 61 in the Friends Provident Trophy Final looking accomplished against the spin of Shane Warne. He has the talent to score hundreds this season and maybe force himself into international reckoning.
Captain and Coach:
Geoff Cook had a fairytale first season as coach after taking the reins following Martyn Moxon’s move to Yorkshire at the start of last season. Dale Benkenstein continues as captain for his third season at the helm.
Outlook:
Surely it’s impossible to emulate the performances of last season…or is it? The Championship is the Holy Grail and I believe this team will go close; a lack of a quality spinner might just prove costly however.
One-day performances will hopefully continue to be strong, don’t rule out another Lords final and maybe just maybe we will get out of Twenty20 Cup north group after years of trying!
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Hoggard and Harmison unceremoniously dumped
After their abject humiliation in the first Test, England had to make changes. The surprise is not the axing of Steve Harmison, who has much to do if he is to play another Test. It is the decision to drop Matthew Hoggard, who has proved his great skill and heart since last being dropped, in December 2003.
Some see this as simply absurd. Harmison is being dropped for three bad years; Hoggard, seemingly, for one bad game. However, such thinking is a gross exaggeration. For Hoggard, who once played 40 consecutive Tests, has recently been injured with alarming regularity. Moreover, his performances are not what they once were. He was wayward in the extreme in the first Test, and may have lost that imperceptible attribute - 'nip' - which is so crucial at Test level.
In his last 12 Tests, stretching back to July 2006, Hoggard has taken 31 wickets at an average of 41. While dropping him appears harsh, the problem is more with who is replacing him - James Anderson, fresh from a mauling in the ODI series and 2-95 for Auckland, and averaging 40 after 20 Tests. A better replacement would have been Charlie Shreck, who is faring excellently for Wellington and, unlike both Anderson and Hoggard, is on fine form and has been bowling plenty of first-class overs of late.
At 31, Hoggard may not have much international cricket left, but, with the goodwill he has earned from a career of relentless dedication, English fans will be willing him on to get back to his best and prove a Test force once more. With Harmison, alas, it seems everyone has long since given up.
Some see this as simply absurd. Harmison is being dropped for three bad years; Hoggard, seemingly, for one bad game. However, such thinking is a gross exaggeration. For Hoggard, who once played 40 consecutive Tests, has recently been injured with alarming regularity. Moreover, his performances are not what they once were. He was wayward in the extreme in the first Test, and may have lost that imperceptible attribute - 'nip' - which is so crucial at Test level.
In his last 12 Tests, stretching back to July 2006, Hoggard has taken 31 wickets at an average of 41. While dropping him appears harsh, the problem is more with who is replacing him - James Anderson, fresh from a mauling in the ODI series and 2-95 for Auckland, and averaging 40 after 20 Tests. A better replacement would have been Charlie Shreck, who is faring excellently for Wellington and, unlike both Anderson and Hoggard, is on fine form and has been bowling plenty of first-class overs of late.
At 31, Hoggard may not have much international cricket left, but, with the goodwill he has earned from a career of relentless dedication, English fans will be willing him on to get back to his best and prove a Test force once more. With Harmison, alas, it seems everyone has long since given up.
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.
Thursday, 2 August 2007
The decline of pace
One of the main factors contributing to the run soaked 2000s has been the lack of top quality Test pace bowlers. The decline has been so marked that since the recent retirement of Glenn McGrath it is hard to name one great quick bowler currently plying his trade. Shaun Pollock comes the closest, but his form has not been brilliant of late and he has a poor record against the best team of his era, Australia.
There are plenty of good seam and swing bowlers and even a few genuine fast bowlers, but none of them can be considered great, let alone all-time greats. It is a serious dearth, which threatens to make life even easier for Test batsmen, who continue to plunder runs and bolster their averages on batsman friendly surfaces.
The fast men
Of the current crop of pace bowlers only a handful can be considered fast. The best of these at the moment is, without doubt, Makhaya Ntini. His determination and enthusiasm, allied to ferocious pace, make him a fearsome prospect for most Test batsmen. Coming in from wide of the crease his deliveries often seem to spear into the batsman, forcing evasive action or uprooting stumps. Unfortunately, Ntini has a great achilles heel - his home bias. On his familiar South African pitches he averages a majestic 22.53, putting him up there with the greats, but take him away from home and the average plummetts to 38.08. For this reason, very good bowler that he is, Ntini cannot be considered great.
If his body was able to bear the strain of Test matches, Shane Bond might have achieved greatness. He has all the attributes and has used them in the 16 Tests he has played to claim 74 wickets @ 22.10. But such a short career (in terms of matches) does not yield enough evidence to know how good he really is.
Another injury plagued bowler is Shoaib Akhtar, though he has managed to take the field for Pakistan in 43 Tests. In this time he has amassed 169 victims, but has rarely been consistent through a series, let alone a season. When he is on form he can be devastating, but against the two best batting line-ups of his era, Australia and India, he has rarely found his best.
Brett Lee, who came to Test cricket in a blaze of glory, fell away badly and was dropped for over a year and a half. Since his return he has shown some good form, though mainly against the West Indies, who must now be considered one of the weaker Test nations. Despite his improvement, Lee still averages 31.60 and has a poor economy rate. He has also struggled against the old enemy, England, as well as Pakistan.
With 83 wickets to his name @ 30.73 Lasith Malinga is emerging as a quick bowler with real talent. His unusual, slinging action was used to much effect in the recent ODI World Cup. Yet he has not shown this devastating form consistently in Tests. There is surely much more to come from the young Sri Lankan, but he is still very much a work in progress.
The England duo Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff often bowl in the early nineties, but usually average in the late eighties. They fall somewhere between the genuinely quick bowlers mentioned above and the numerous fast medium and medium fast bowlers that ply their trade in Test cricket. Both hit the pitch hard and can extract lethal bounce, yet neither can be considered more than very good, occasionally brilliant. Harmison is too inconsistent and his average is creeping up, whereas Flintoff is wonderfully consistent, but rarely rips through a side.
The rest
There are a number of good swing bowlers in Test cricket, though most rely on conditions to help them and some can be cannon fodder when the ball fails to swing. Amongst the best is the veteran Sri Lankan, Chaminda Vaas. So often underrated this hard working left armer is always ready to give his captain another over. Vaas usually bowls with miserly accuracy, achieving the astonishing economy rate of 2.66, despite playing so many of his matches in unhelpful conditions. The only things mitigating against him are his average, just 29.21 and his relatively poor record against India, Pakistan and South Africa.
England's Matthew Hoggard is the form swing bowler in Tests. He has consistently broken opening partnerships and is particularly unforgiving against left handers. His dogged attitude and ability to bowl well even when there is little swing around has made him England's best pace bowler in recent series. But for an injury this summer he would surely have added to his tally against the West Indies and India. Only his average of 30.03 and his poor form against Australia and Pakistan can be held against him.
A couple of high class newcomers, Mohammad Asif and Stuart Clark, have the potential to stake their claim to be regarded amongst the best. Both have excellent records in the short time they have been playing Test cricket, but will need to test themselves against all opponents in all conditions before a verdict can be reached.
Of the remaining Test bowlers currently playing there are plenty of other newcomers, as well as some more seasoned campaigners, but none with track records that suggest they will be great or are more than fleetingly brilliant. When you consider how many of the best pace bowlers of all-time were playing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s it is hard to see how we have reached such a famine in the 2000s. Pitches can be blamed for some of it, but I remember those greats often taking wickets on flat surfaces. Whatever the reasons for it the sad truth is that there are few quick bowlers currently playing Test cricket who can strike fear into opposing batsmen and the game is all the poorer for it.
There are plenty of good seam and swing bowlers and even a few genuine fast bowlers, but none of them can be considered great, let alone all-time greats. It is a serious dearth, which threatens to make life even easier for Test batsmen, who continue to plunder runs and bolster their averages on batsman friendly surfaces.
The fast men
Of the current crop of pace bowlers only a handful can be considered fast. The best of these at the moment is, without doubt, Makhaya Ntini. His determination and enthusiasm, allied to ferocious pace, make him a fearsome prospect for most Test batsmen. Coming in from wide of the crease his deliveries often seem to spear into the batsman, forcing evasive action or uprooting stumps. Unfortunately, Ntini has a great achilles heel - his home bias. On his familiar South African pitches he averages a majestic 22.53, putting him up there with the greats, but take him away from home and the average plummetts to 38.08. For this reason, very good bowler that he is, Ntini cannot be considered great.
If his body was able to bear the strain of Test matches, Shane Bond might have achieved greatness. He has all the attributes and has used them in the 16 Tests he has played to claim 74 wickets @ 22.10. But such a short career (in terms of matches) does not yield enough evidence to know how good he really is.
Another injury plagued bowler is Shoaib Akhtar, though he has managed to take the field for Pakistan in 43 Tests. In this time he has amassed 169 victims, but has rarely been consistent through a series, let alone a season. When he is on form he can be devastating, but against the two best batting line-ups of his era, Australia and India, he has rarely found his best.
Brett Lee, who came to Test cricket in a blaze of glory, fell away badly and was dropped for over a year and a half. Since his return he has shown some good form, though mainly against the West Indies, who must now be considered one of the weaker Test nations. Despite his improvement, Lee still averages 31.60 and has a poor economy rate. He has also struggled against the old enemy, England, as well as Pakistan.
With 83 wickets to his name @ 30.73 Lasith Malinga is emerging as a quick bowler with real talent. His unusual, slinging action was used to much effect in the recent ODI World Cup. Yet he has not shown this devastating form consistently in Tests. There is surely much more to come from the young Sri Lankan, but he is still very much a work in progress.
The England duo Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff often bowl in the early nineties, but usually average in the late eighties. They fall somewhere between the genuinely quick bowlers mentioned above and the numerous fast medium and medium fast bowlers that ply their trade in Test cricket. Both hit the pitch hard and can extract lethal bounce, yet neither can be considered more than very good, occasionally brilliant. Harmison is too inconsistent and his average is creeping up, whereas Flintoff is wonderfully consistent, but rarely rips through a side.
The rest
There are a number of good swing bowlers in Test cricket, though most rely on conditions to help them and some can be cannon fodder when the ball fails to swing. Amongst the best is the veteran Sri Lankan, Chaminda Vaas. So often underrated this hard working left armer is always ready to give his captain another over. Vaas usually bowls with miserly accuracy, achieving the astonishing economy rate of 2.66, despite playing so many of his matches in unhelpful conditions. The only things mitigating against him are his average, just 29.21 and his relatively poor record against India, Pakistan and South Africa.
England's Matthew Hoggard is the form swing bowler in Tests. He has consistently broken opening partnerships and is particularly unforgiving against left handers. His dogged attitude and ability to bowl well even when there is little swing around has made him England's best pace bowler in recent series. But for an injury this summer he would surely have added to his tally against the West Indies and India. Only his average of 30.03 and his poor form against Australia and Pakistan can be held against him.
A couple of high class newcomers, Mohammad Asif and Stuart Clark, have the potential to stake their claim to be regarded amongst the best. Both have excellent records in the short time they have been playing Test cricket, but will need to test themselves against all opponents in all conditions before a verdict can be reached.
Of the remaining Test bowlers currently playing there are plenty of other newcomers, as well as some more seasoned campaigners, but none with track records that suggest they will be great or are more than fleetingly brilliant. When you consider how many of the best pace bowlers of all-time were playing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s it is hard to see how we have reached such a famine in the 2000s. Pitches can be blamed for some of it, but I remember those greats often taking wickets on flat surfaces. Whatever the reasons for it the sad truth is that there are few quick bowlers currently playing Test cricket who can strike fear into opposing batsmen and the game is all the poorer for it.
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.
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Selection Headaches
In the wake of England's hammering of the West Indies, the selectors have found themselves in a bit of problem: If everyone is fit to play - who to pick?
With the 'horses for courses' selection of Ryan Sidebottom playing so well at Headingley, surely he cannot just be put out of the window for the next test, however if Hoggard proves himself fit enough for Old Trafford, can we afford to go in with two swing bowlers?
Also, maybe a good dilemma could be who to get rid of out of Plunkett or Harmison if Sidebottom is picked again. Neither played fantastically well but neither sprayed it around as much as they did a Lord's. Both proved they can bowl good wicket-taking balls and Harmison clocked up around 94mph showing he can still bowl dangerously fast.
Lets say Flintoff is fit to play again, do we go in with a four or five man attack? For me a 4 man attack including Panesar is fine, but we have seen in previous years that the selectors, coach and captain like a 5-man attack. If a 5-man attack was picked, which batsman would go? Collingwood would be the obvious man, but his form is too good, so for me Bell. However, if a 4-man attack is chosen, which bowlers do we go in with? Sidebottom and Hoggard are too 'samey' if we only go for 3 seamers (including Flintoff), but how can you drop Sidebottom? Plunkett and Harmison will be asking what they have done wrong aswell to be dropped. So the selectors have a lot of thinking to do.
If you ask me, providing Flintoff was fit enough to bowl 20-30 overs a day, I would play a 4-man attack, with the two swing bowlers, Hoggard and Sidebottom making up the rest of the seam attack, with Panesar obvisiously being the spinner.
I would pick this side to play at Old Trafford;
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Prior
Flintoff
Hoggard
Panesar
Sidebottom
This may appear a huge risk, playing 2 swing bowlers and having no varitaion, but although their performance was greatly improved, Plunkett and Harmison were still too wayward and more county appearances can only help. But the batting (although it hasn't come under much pressure so far) is greatly improved, with Flintoff at 8.
Jack
With the 'horses for courses' selection of Ryan Sidebottom playing so well at Headingley, surely he cannot just be put out of the window for the next test, however if Hoggard proves himself fit enough for Old Trafford, can we afford to go in with two swing bowlers?
Also, maybe a good dilemma could be who to get rid of out of Plunkett or Harmison if Sidebottom is picked again. Neither played fantastically well but neither sprayed it around as much as they did a Lord's. Both proved they can bowl good wicket-taking balls and Harmison clocked up around 94mph showing he can still bowl dangerously fast.
Lets say Flintoff is fit to play again, do we go in with a four or five man attack? For me a 4 man attack including Panesar is fine, but we have seen in previous years that the selectors, coach and captain like a 5-man attack. If a 5-man attack was picked, which batsman would go? Collingwood would be the obvious man, but his form is too good, so for me Bell. However, if a 4-man attack is chosen, which bowlers do we go in with? Sidebottom and Hoggard are too 'samey' if we only go for 3 seamers (including Flintoff), but how can you drop Sidebottom? Plunkett and Harmison will be asking what they have done wrong aswell to be dropped. So the selectors have a lot of thinking to do.
If you ask me, providing Flintoff was fit enough to bowl 20-30 overs a day, I would play a 4-man attack, with the two swing bowlers, Hoggard and Sidebottom making up the rest of the seam attack, with Panesar obvisiously being the spinner.
I would pick this side to play at Old Trafford;
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Prior
Flintoff
Hoggard
Panesar
Sidebottom
This may appear a huge risk, playing 2 swing bowlers and having no varitaion, but although their performance was greatly improved, Plunkett and Harmison were still too wayward and more county appearances can only help. But the batting (although it hasn't come under much pressure so far) is greatly improved, with Flintoff at 8.
Jack
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
The real Harmison
Once again Steve Harmison finds himself under attack for not performing at Lord's last week. No other current England player seems capable of generating heated argument as easily as the Durham enigma.
I have always been a great admirer of Harmison and supported his selection through all his ups and downs. I still do and the reason for that is that he is still a class Test bowler, who's figures reflect a player England cannot afford to drop.
His recent nightmare in Australia and sluggish bowling at Lord's should not disguise the fact that Harmison was ripping though a strong Pakistan team only last August and that his overall record, apart from three glaring anomalies, stands up to the most ardent scrutiny.
Those anomalies are his two tours of Australia and one tour of South Africa. On all three occasions he was unable to perform at the high level we have all come to expect and looked the sad forlorn figure that left the recent Ashes series with his tail between his legs.
The terrible stats of those three tours make grim reading for Harmison supporters - Australia 2002/3: 9 wickets @ 50.55, SA 2004/5: 9 @ 73.22, Australia 2006/7: 10 @ 61.40. Clearly these performances are not good enough, but they are not just down to Harmison not travelling well, as his stats for other tours reveal.
Against Australia most of the England bowlers suffered on both those tours, as one expects in such one-sided series. The South Africa tour is an odd one as the pitches ought to have suited Harmison. Maybe he just got on a poor run and his alleged homesickness got the better of him.
On other tours Harmison has been far more successful. On the flat dead tracks of Pakistan in 2005/6, against a very strong batting line-up, Harmison showed great determination to take 12 wickets @ 32.41. Even in India in 2005/6, when he was not fully fit, he managed 5 @ 38.60.
Of course, his finest hour, excluding his 9 @ 8.77 in Bangladesh in 2003/4, was against West Indies in 2003/4. In this series, which people forget was the first England had won in WI for over 30 years, Harmison took 23 @ 14.86.
Harmison's home form has always been good. He has consistently taken wickets in every series he has played in England, only suffering once against SA in 2003, when he managed only 9 wickets @ 45.88. However, this was a very high scoring series in hot weather when most bowlers suffered.
Only last summer Harmison showed his quality taking 20 @ 27.10 against Pakistan, despite the number of runs scored by their batsmen in that series.
In conclusion Harmison's overall record of 190 wickets @ 31.10 in just 51 Tests stands comparison with most good fast bowlers, in terms of wickets per match. His average is too high, reflecting those three awful tours, but is still acceptable in a batsman dominated era.
To suggest that he should be dropped after just one Test this summer is to ignore the history of the man and to weaken England's bowling attack considerably.
I have always been a great admirer of Harmison and supported his selection through all his ups and downs. I still do and the reason for that is that he is still a class Test bowler, who's figures reflect a player England cannot afford to drop.
His recent nightmare in Australia and sluggish bowling at Lord's should not disguise the fact that Harmison was ripping though a strong Pakistan team only last August and that his overall record, apart from three glaring anomalies, stands up to the most ardent scrutiny.
Those anomalies are his two tours of Australia and one tour of South Africa. On all three occasions he was unable to perform at the high level we have all come to expect and looked the sad forlorn figure that left the recent Ashes series with his tail between his legs.
The terrible stats of those three tours make grim reading for Harmison supporters - Australia 2002/3: 9 wickets @ 50.55, SA 2004/5: 9 @ 73.22, Australia 2006/7: 10 @ 61.40. Clearly these performances are not good enough, but they are not just down to Harmison not travelling well, as his stats for other tours reveal.
Against Australia most of the England bowlers suffered on both those tours, as one expects in such one-sided series. The South Africa tour is an odd one as the pitches ought to have suited Harmison. Maybe he just got on a poor run and his alleged homesickness got the better of him.
On other tours Harmison has been far more successful. On the flat dead tracks of Pakistan in 2005/6, against a very strong batting line-up, Harmison showed great determination to take 12 wickets @ 32.41. Even in India in 2005/6, when he was not fully fit, he managed 5 @ 38.60.
Of course, his finest hour, excluding his 9 @ 8.77 in Bangladesh in 2003/4, was against West Indies in 2003/4. In this series, which people forget was the first England had won in WI for over 30 years, Harmison took 23 @ 14.86.
Harmison's home form has always been good. He has consistently taken wickets in every series he has played in England, only suffering once against SA in 2003, when he managed only 9 wickets @ 45.88. However, this was a very high scoring series in hot weather when most bowlers suffered.
Only last summer Harmison showed his quality taking 20 @ 27.10 against Pakistan, despite the number of runs scored by their batsmen in that series.
In conclusion Harmison's overall record of 190 wickets @ 31.10 in just 51 Tests stands comparison with most good fast bowlers, in terms of wickets per match. His average is too high, reflecting those three awful tours, but is still acceptable in a batsman dominated era.
To suggest that he should be dropped after just one Test this summer is to ignore the history of the man and to weaken England's bowling attack considerably.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)