Cricket is a drug – a nasty one. Cardiff was a high we so desperately needed after two years of crap. I was buzzing. But Lord’s has sent me crashing back to earth. My mouth is dry and I’ve got a headache. It’s the ultimate come down.
I’m struggling to think of a more depressing, emphatic and humiliating defeat – or indeed, a worse England performance. Whereas the Aussies played superbly and looked more like their old selves, England were rubbish. In fact, rubbish is too kind. We were pathetic.
Our cricketers have no excuse. Every time we win a test match we fall flat on our faces. Do we get complacent? Do we start believing the hype? I’m beginning to think so.
Although we lost an important toss at Lord’s, our performance in the field was flat. It’s almost like we expected success, and assumed good things would happen automatically (as if by magic), without actually earning it. Every bowler was down on pace. Harsh judges might say this reflected a lack of effort. At the very least it demonstrated an unforgivable lack of intensity.
On the other hand, perhaps we just have to accept that our team is inconsistent: they try their best but their best isn’t always good enough. We won at Cardiff by playing well, and we lost at Lord’s by playing badly. So what? It’s one all with three to play. Chin up chaps.
Personally I cannot subscribe to the latter perspective. I know I’m not the first to say this, but the manner of England’s defeat was so brutal, and so visceral, that it’s going to be extremely tough to come back.
The problem is that we suffered more than a defeat at Lord’s. If we’d simply been outplayed, we could’ve put it down to a bad day at the office: “next time will be different fellas”. But that’s not what happened. England were beaten up. Our batsmen looked scared. We were psychologically destroyed.
When Stuart Broad was hit on the head against India last year, it took him several months to start thinking clearly again. Some might say he still hasn’t recovered. How on earth are Joe Root, who suffered a mighty blow to the helmet, Moeen Ali, Gary Ballance and Ian Bell supposed to recover in a couple of weeks?
All these batsmen were given a frightful working over. They were unsettled, jumpy and – it’s that word again – scared. Johnson and Starc terrify them. Even Alastair Cook, who battled so bravely in the first innings, took a physical beating and looked a broken man by the end.
During the 1980s England routinely suffered humiliating defeats like this. The West Indies fast bowlers got into our heads. It’s a whole new red ball game when batsmen’s physical wellbeing is at stake.
There was a telling test match when Chris Broad, who was England’s best batsman at one point, looked relieved to be dismissed. He’d taken such a fearful hammering that the pavilion offered welcome respite.
How many of England’s current batsmen will be feeling the same?
Ian Bell looks totally bereft of confidence, Jimmy Anderson failed to take a single wicket in the match, and Alastair Cook, though he batted with great determination in the first innings, looked like a player battling his own limitations and struggling to comprehend the carnage around him.
Whereas Chris Rogers and Steve Smith scored their runs serenely, England’s rock needed every ounce of his famed mental strength just to survive. Perhaps this best represented the gulf between the two teams.
Bowling of great ferocity has often troubled Bell and Cook. Both average under 40 against Australia in thirty and twenty-seven tests respectively. History tells us that we cannot always rely on them in the cauldron of Ashes cricket. When the senior players are vanquished so decisively, what chance have the rank and file got?
England desperately need Joe Root to score big hundreds if we’re going to be competitive. Let’s hope our captain-to-be isn’t adversely affected by his blow to the helmet and a potential move up the order. If Root folds we’re doomed.
So what can England do? I’m all for continuity when it comes to selection, but picking exactly the same 2, 3 and 4 at Edgbaston would play into Australia’s hands; therefore we must eschew conservatism, copy Australia’s post Cardiff blueprint, and tinker with the line-up.
The first option is to pick exactly the same XI but shake up the batting order. Root could go to 3, with Bell 4 and Balance 5.
The next option is to simply make a change at 3. I hate to say it, as I believe he’s a talented player, but Ballance cannot be successful against top class bowling with his existing method. He’s a sitting duck. He’s batted long enough to show everyone that he’s out of his depth where he is. He needs to take a breather and work on his technique.
The next option is to drop Lyth and Ballance, or even Lyth, Balance and Bell. The latter would reek of panic in my opinion. With Kevin Pietersen exiled by a board determined to punish him for embarrassing them, we don’t have a single proven international class batsmen waiting to step in – let alone three.
My personal preference, therefore, would be to persevere with Lyth (who scored a hundred not long ago) and give Bell one final chance on his home ground. I’m afraid that Ballance is toast though. I would move Root to four, drop Bell down to five, and pick a newbie at number three.
Unfortunately there are no obvious candidates to step into the side. Alex Hales might be worth a punt, but I’m not sure his technique is good enough. He’s often looked unsure against the moving ball in ODIs. Unfortunately however, none of the other obvious candidates like James Vince, James Taylor or Varun Chopra have scored enough runs this year.
The only other possible alternative I can think of is James Hildreth of Somerset – but he’s more of a number four. On balance therefore, Hales gets the nod. His credentials don’t convince me but I still think he’s got more chance of scoring runs than Ballance.
I would also be tempted to pick Jonny Bairstow ahead of Jos Buttler, who (as some predicted) looks a little lost against top class pace bowling. In the interests of continuity, however, I would give Jos another chance to prove himself.
Many of you would probably prefer to see Root at three, with Bairstow coming into the side as a specialist batsman anyway. I can see the logic in this, but Bairstow himself looked horribly out of his depth the last time he played Ashes cricket. Has he eradicated his weakness against deliveries moving back into him?
The final issue we must discuss is pitches. England are in a tough spot. If we prepare true surfaces then we nullify our own bowlers – which is exactly what happened at Lord’s. Good pitches generally require genuine pace or mystery spin to take twenty wickets. Australia have the first but not the latter. England have neither.
On the other hand, if we prepare wickets with a bit of life and grass, then Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood will be as happy as Merv Hughes at an all-you-can-eat buffet. If our batsmen were almost decapitated at Lord’s, a pitch with pace and bounce will finish the job.
The way I see it, England only have one viable option: dig up the Cardiff pitch and move it up the M5 to Brumagen. Preparing a pitch that’s essentially slow, but offers a little lateral movement for the seamers, is our best hope.
What do you think?
James Morgan
@DoctorCopy
Hard to argue with those comments James, as I’ve been making similar ones.
Could Compton at 3 be an option? Granted it’d require some “forgiveness” from the England camp after 2013 …
Also, “It’s one all with two to play.” – have they cancelled one test?
Maths was never my strong-point. Ask Venay. I couldn’t count to 6 when umpiring the other day. Obviously five is a challenge too!
I did consider Compton, but he was hit on the head himself a couple of weeks ago. My all accounts it was a nasty one. Consequently, I don’t think he’s the right bloke atm.
I would be tempted to draft Darryll Mitchell into the team. Firstly, he is scoring big runs again (albeit in the 2nd division) and also because he is called Mitchell, which seems to work very well for the Aussies !
I agree with Hales, but we still need KP, Jesus what is wrong with Strauss and Cook in that they would rather lose the Ashes than pick out best batsman!
Cardiff was an aberration and I think we are going to lose 4-1.
I did consider Mitchell too, but as a Worcs fan I think my county’s need is greater ;-)
Roy?
Didn’t Taylor score 160+ yesterday?
Oh and it should be “will be as happy as Mike Gatting at an all-you-can-eat buffet”!
I’ve just looked at the county championship averages and it says Taylor averages in the mid-20s this year. Perhaps they haven’t updated the stats yet?
Not quite sure how the dodgy technique of Lyth and Ballance would be bettered by the weakness of Hales’?
Bell is shot and the only middle order worth looking at is Bairstow, not silly county favourites like Mitchell, Vince and Hildreth.
Compton has the best technique of a top three batsman not in the side; time for Jimmy and Broad and anyone ekse to get over their pathetic grievances with him
Kevin should be at 4, simple. I’d bring in the Fat Controller (Giles Clark) to open the batting with Cook as they are both from ‘the right sort of family’. Just don’t give him a helmet.
[…] post Beaten, Bruised and Brutalised appeared first on The Full Toss – England Cricket […]
Number three is the crunch position, which the best batsman in any team ought to aspire to, as it’s probably the toughest, requiring some of the the skills of an opener in dealing with the new ball (particularly given the recent form of England’s opening pair), coupled with the ability to accelerate the scoring.
I’m not quite sure of Root is ready, but he certainly fits the bill. That Bell never stepped up to claim the spot for himself, as he is probably the most classically gifted batsman in the side, condemns him in my eyes. That and his recent form, which is worse than pretty well everyone (look at his average over the last eight innings), makes him a prime candidate for the drop.
Unless it’s Root, I don’t have any suggestions. I doubt Hales would perform significantly better than the current incumbents if dropped into the middle of this series.
I agree that Lyth should stay for now… and if Bell keeps his place, for God’s sake don’t field him at slip: another indication that Cook doesn’t know what he’s doing as captain.
He’s no good as a specialist slip fielder, and every dropped catch dents his fragile confidence.
“That Bell never stepped up to claim the spot for himself, as he is probably the most classically gifted batsman in the side, condemns him in my eyes.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/25166933
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/nov/30/bell-happy-to-bat-three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2515978/Ashes-2013-14-Ian-Bell-like-bat-No-3-knows-decision-his.html
You know what? When you have the highest average in the side between 2009 and 2013, when you’ve just had the series of your life, when you’ve just lost a county and international colleague after sharing nearly 50 Tests in the middle order, when you scored 235 and 159 last time you batted at three (as a replacement for Trott!), when you spent a full series batting at three in Australia, and when you volunteer to step up *in Australia* and you’re *still* ignored in favour of a far less experienced player recently demoted from opening because people had valid questions about his ability against the new ball, kindly tell me what the hell else you’re supposed to do?
Bell is basically the anti-Cook in terms of the media/public portrayal over the course of his career. He’s better off out of it. Disgracefully under-appreciated.
Bell needs to step down himself. His decline is similar to Andrew Strauss at the end of his career and countless others before him. I just don’t think the reactions are there any more
Ballance needs to go to. I am not convinced by Lyth but would give him a couple more chances.
The toothless nature of our bowling attack, apart from Stuart Broad in the 1st innings, worries me as much as our top 4. If the ball isn’t doing anything Jimmy Anderson in particular looks very innocuous.
I’m a bit out of touch re the county scene – who do we really have waiting in the wings in either department and are they really up to the job?
Sorry, I try to be polite here but that first paragraph is complete nonsense.
37 year old Chris Rogers is top of the Ashes’ averages. 38 year old Younis Khan recently pulled off the sixth highest run chase in Test history.
Bell is 33 for heaven’s sake. By all means drop him for being out of form but to write about his reactions having gone is preposterous.
Bayliss has his work cut out now.
I’d dump Ballance and Bell now. Compton – recent prang notwithstanding – is my preference at 3. Barstow deserves to come in, probably at 6 below Stokes.
Let’s face it, KP aside, there isn’t anyone. So why bother scarring a new batsman? I’d just shuffle the pack. Ian Bell has over 100 tests and we’ve had 10 years of everyone telling us how good he is, when clearly he isn’t. He should bloody well take responsibility and bat 3. And be told his primary responsibility is to stay in if we lose an early wicket. This involves playing straight, not getting bowled playing to midwicket against a ball that moves a bit, as happened in the first innings at Lord’s. Root to 4 (reluctantly) and Ballance at 5 for a last chance. If he fails again, replace with Bairstow, who has earned another chance and is a better player than he was a couple of years ago. Couple of other thoughts:
1) This series has really exposed the idiocity of the Jonathan Trott experiment in the WI – Lyth had earned his chance and could have been much more bedded in as a Test player.
2) I’d been impressed with Mark Wood until now but he was awful at Lord’s. He was supposed to be a 90 mph bowler, yet every time I looked he was under 85? Why? The measurement is through the air so is nothing to do with the pitch. Apparently he’s “tired” after back to back Tests. Give me a break. Starc could barely walk at Cardiff, but was getting up to 90 at Lord’s. Can Wood actually bowl at 90, or not?
3) Before yesterday’s debacle, Bell and Ballance had been out Bowled for 10 of their last 20 dismissals. 50%! That’s ridiculous for top order players and a good illustration of how poor their defensive techniques are.
How do we square Cook’s denial of any responsibility for suggesting the kind of pitch prepared at Cardiff and Lords with his request, according to the BBC today for “English wickets” for the remaining Tests… ?
What most worries me, other than Feeble Cook, is Ballance’s huge step back and planting himself there waaaaaaay before the bowler’s delivery stride. It’s quite extraordinary and I do not remember aeeing anything like it in over 40 years?
It’s making me cringe to watch. You feel like screaming at him to stop. But then he’s scored a lot of runs with this unwatchable technique.
Phil Jacques used to look like nothing on earth till he’d faced about 40 balls.
Didn’t finish, Ballance may be the same and just hasn’t stuck around enough to warm up to his game.
What happened to England’s ‘positive mindset’ and their new ‘attacking brand of cricket’? According to most commentators that’s all it takes to be world-beaters. Technique against 90mph bowling is less important.
Chin up, James.
It’s 1-1, you Pommie bastards.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/881539.html
Love you too!
Did you miss the reference?
No. 2+3 is the problem and one we’ve faced since Strauss and Trott (albeit returning briefly) retired, it’s not a recent Aussie induced phenomenon.
I’d love to see KP open up with Cook as an attacking foil, it would be a gripping spectacle. Can’t see him wanting to uproot from the comfort of 5 let alone Strauss actually making the call.
In the end, we probably have more or less the best side available perhaps shuffling the order is the most realistic option?
I have to say my jaw dropped when I saw the pace our our 4 quicks on Thursday, almost 10mph down from Cardiff, no such trouble for one legged Starc and ‘old man’ Johnson. That ultimately made the difference and the pitch wasn’t as flat as we thought.
Does Rashid count as a mystery spinner? Could we not move Moeen up the order and tell him to focus on his batting – he opens in ODIs so why play him up the order, Rashid is also handy with the bat. Finally can we accept that Broad is no longer the batsman he was and play him down the order with Jimmy.
It did occur to be that a slow tuner might be England’s best chance of bouncing back.
Whether our groundsmen are able or willing to prepare one to order is another matter
You just need a spell of decent weather and then you just cut the grass two days earlier than usual to dry the pitch out.
I believe that Balance has not recovered after being parachuted into the England ODI team by Moores. He was immediately battered by the Australian and NZ talented bowlers and has not shown his previous steady form since. Cook’s nasty rant about the team was his usual deflection of criticism away from him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/33589135
It is worth looking at the following:
England v Australia Lord’s
1st innings
3-29 Lyth, Balance and Bell out
2nd innings
3-43 Lyth, Cook and Balance out
England v Australia at Cardiff
1st innings:
3-43 Lyth, Cook and Bell out
2nd innings
3-73 Cook, Balance and Lyth out
Cook is as culpable as the others.
It’s a very good point and one which I had wanted to make in my rantings and ravings on yesterday’s thread, but I was just too angry to be able to think clearly on Sunday. Cook’s scores so far are 20, 12, 96 and 11 I think. He dug in hard for that 96 but even then got himself out to a poor shot, rather than being beaten by an unplayable delivery. Rogers, who is 35, green/red colour-blind, and suffering from delayed concussion, has managed 95, 10, 173 and ret hurt 49 so far, so he’s doing a far better job than Cook.
We’ve long talked about Cook’s record against the best teams on this website. It’s really not that good. He makes huge runs against the likes of the Windies, India, Sri Lanka etc (he averages almost 60 against these boys) but against the best bowling nations i.e. Australia, South Africa and Pakistan, his average drops to 35-40. He was brilliant in the 2010/11 Ashes, but has failed quite badly in his other four Ashes series.
Having seen Cook play so well against New Zealand, I really thought this was his chance to step up, put things right, and become the truly great player that so many tell us he already is. Although he’s only scored runs in one of his last four innings, I still think he’s in good enough form to set the record straight.
Having said that, I might have detected a slight deterioration in his technique in the 2nd innings. On Sky’s slow mo replays, I noticed that his front foot was sometimes in mid-air (his trigger movement) at the point the ball was released. This was a flaw that crept into his game last year. I really hope this hasn’t crept back into his game permanently. The Aussies are excellent at exploiting any weakness.
What was unforgivable was not that England lost but that they did not even try to make the Australians work for the victory. Given the age of some of the Australian team you would have thought at the very least they would want to keep them in the field as long as possible in the hope of wearing some of them out before the end of the Ashes series. Again I suspect that this failure is down to Cook’s inability to motivate the team when they come under the cosh. Rule number one in sport when up against a potentially superior opponent is to attempt make to make life asdifficult as possible for them by doing things they want to avoid. England can not even get that basic right.
With the changes to the Aus team, they had more players in their 20s than their 30s for the Lords test.
Good point made by Hugh Fowler above. How does Cook react when the match situation is going against England ? Before play on Sunday, you’d like to think he was giving his team a rousing speech, reminding them that it was a good batting wicket, as well as the fact that there was a 1-0 series lead to be fought for. He should have been telling the players to make the Aussies fight hard for every wicket. I wonder how better captains such as Mike Brearley and Michael Vaughan would have handled things on Saturday night and Sunday. When the going gets tough, does Cook then crawl back into his shell and just hope the other players can sort things out for themselves ? Does he go into a sort of self-preservation mode ? I just don’t think he is good enough as a captain.
Can you really blame Cook’s captaincy for the result?
Well as I stated it was the perfomance, particularly in the second innings not the result that was so dispiriting
Captaincy is a bit more than making the right tactical decisions or even performing oneself as a player. It is about motivating your team to produce their best, particularly when the going gets tough, and it is that department where I think Englands leadership is most lacking. Under Cook the moment things have got sticky they have shown an alarming tendency to fold. Losing against a vastly superior team as England did against the West Indies in the late 1970s or early 1980s is one thing. Getting bowled out for 103 in just 37 overs in their second innings on a pitch where over 850 runs were scored by both teams in the first innings is something else. Just glad I had not paid my hard earned cash to watch it live
“Well as I stated it was the perfomance, particularly in the second innings not the result that was so dispiriting”
And then blamed Cook for that?
“Captaincy is a bit more than making the right tactical decisions or even performing oneself as a player. It is about motivating your team to produce their best, particularly when the going gets tough, and it is that department where I think Englands leadership is most lacking.”
England aren’t motivated? I reckon they probably are. Do you think a different captain would simply get them to try harder?
“Under Cook the moment things have got sticky they have shown an alarming tendency to fold.”
Maybe that is about the players rather than the captain?
“Getting bowled out for 103 in just 37 overs in their second innings on a pitch where over 850 runs were scored by both teams in the first innings is something else.”
Again, maybe that’s about the players, not just the captain?
I get that Cook has alienated a lot of supporters but doesn’t it seem a little too easy to blame him for any collective failure?
Well Napoleon might have said –
“All great events hang by a thread ”
and
“From best to worst is but a step”
but I think good generals make their own luck.
Anway all I can say is that the players collectively seem to have a remarkably high failure rate under Cook’ s command when the pressure is on. It may be that he is just burdened with awful teams by the ECB but I doubt that is the whole story.
I would just add that my rather dim view of Cook’s skill as captain was derived from watching the 2013 Ashes series which England won. At the time I thought England was flattered by the result which was largely down to stand out individual performances by Anderson at Trent Bridge, Bell and Root at Lord’s and Broad at Chester Le Street plus some fortune with the weather at Old Trafford which gifted England a draw when Australia were in a winning position. My abiding memory of that series was the way Cook mercilessly bowled Anderson into the ground during its course. I don’t think he has been the same bowler since that experience.
And he might be a poor captain. But he’s not responsible for the collective failure at Lord’s. It just seems way too convenient to sheet that home to the captain.
You could change the captain and it wouldn’t necessarily help Lyth, Ballance and Bell makes runs.
Having the sense not to field Bell at slip might actually help him make runs.
He is a talented player of extremely fragile confidence, who also happens to be a rather fallible slip.
A halfway smart captain would not make that mistake.
Again, he might not be a very good captain. Granted.
But I don’t think you can blame this performance on Cook when he actually made runs in the first innings.
That’s irrational.
I don’t hold him solely responsible by any means.
Just pointing out that our “inspirational” captain isn’t.
“I’m struggling to think of a more depressing, emphatic and humiliating defeat – or indeed, a worse England performance. ”
You’ve obviously expunged Sydney 2014 from your mind, James, and very understandably so.
Unfortunately, it seems England had too.
What is making me really very very angry about this last Test is that it’s exactly what happened to us in the last Ashes. And it seems that nothing has been done, in the intervening 18 months, to provide England players with the technical armoury to deal with the fast, intelligent, attacking bowling that was as certain to reappear as the Australians were certain to be wearing dark green caps of a baggy design.
Having offered the two ludicrous explanations that the annihilation in the last Ashes was “Kevin Pietersen’s fault” (Paul Downton) and/or “the end of an era” (Andy Flower), it was decided that all England needed to do was improve their attitude, their ethic and philosophy. Their strength would then be as the strength of ten because their hearts would be pure. No-one confronted the fact that England’s batsmen had been blown away by pace and guile and they desperately needed to learn how to deal with both.
‘Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.’ It’s hardly rocket science. What did they think was going to happen, Johnson would have mysteriously forgotten how to bowl? Starc would get the measles?
Oh, well, yes, they did prepare something. The pitches.
Some of you blokes are melting down way too much.
It’s 1-1.
At the start of the series, the pessimists here would have undoubtedly taken that.
Yes but if Aus had played so abjectly after going 1 up, I’d be ripe for murder too.
But it is 1-1 and the Aussies are just as likely to bat poorly like they did in Cardiff next test. Hope not but they collapse an awful lot too.
Thanks for that Tom. There I was thinking England might have a problem or two. Now looking forward to us giving those century scoring, 90 mph bowling Aussies a lesson at Headingly
England do have a problem or two. There’s no doubt about that. But Australia’s batting line-up didn’t become infallible overnight just because they won at Lord’s.
English fans just throw their pendulums too quickly.
I recall the 2009 Ashes. England went 1-0 ahead at Lord’s but were then absolutely hammered in the fourth Test at Headingley. Australia won by an innings and 80 runs, having bowled England out for 102 in the first innings. That made it 1-1 with one Test to play.
In the aftermath, all the talk was of how England had melted down and how their hopes were now completely doomed. There’s no way they’d be able to recover from such a crushing defeat in time to be competitive in the fifth and final Test.
But then, the fifth Test rolls around, Broad runs through Australia in the first innings and England win by 190 runs to reclaim the Ashes. The Negative Nancys all had to pretend they hadn’t actually written the team off a week earlier.
Momentum can shift on the back of one or two stand-out performances. The loss at Lord’s doesn’t suddenly mean England are incapable of doing this.
So why don’t you pull yourselves together? It’s 1-1. Anything can happen from here. Really, we’re back to the start of the series. Australia might be favourites but England can win if they play well.
Quite agree. Anderson might average 38 against Australia (both in England and away), but it doesn’t mean he can’t bowl a match winning spell or two.
I do think it will be tough though for England to regain the ashes, unless we get two rained effected matches and you win the other. I can’t see Australia not winning one of the next 3 with their bowling attack, and I doubt England can win 2. Stranger things have happened though, like key injuries.
I’m not English.
Heaven forbid.
We agree on something !
:-)
Sorry, I don’t know you.
Have we discussed something previously?
I didn’t think you were English. I try to stay away from name calling.
Anything can indeed happen.
It is, however, tough to imagine a pitch on which the England attack will take more wickets than the now in form Australian one.
Unless we play two spinners on a raging bunsen….
Yes, statistically this was worse than anything in the either of the white washes, but Sydney ’14 sticks in my mind too as being a worse capitulation in terms of timidness and willingness to deliver one’s wicket.
Unexpectedly it was Broad this time to offered the most resistance.
Pithiest comment of the day.
Sums up England’s performance.
By the way did anybody read Selvey in the Grauniad saying that nobody should be looking for a scapegoat for a team failure???
I am still in recovery mode
That is hilarious. Amazing he doesn’t recognise the irony.
That was very funny.
Here is a sentence from the Selvey article:
“We all know the old thing about a camel being a horse designed by committee, and aAnother [sic] of Niven’s rationales is that decisions, whether they prove right or wrong, are best made by an individual on the premise that the more voices that are heard, the greater the tendency, as research has shown, for a consensus which may be reached by individuals agreeing to things, often against their judgment were they making decisions on their own, simply to go with the flow.”
????
Poor Mike is obviously trying the Chewbacca Defence. Just confuse the hell out of everyone and you’ll win the argument.
https://youtu.be/xwdba9C2G14
I’m going to have a bit of fun with the England team for the next test, just for the hell of it. I actually doubt the powers that be will make any changes at all, perhaps just a tweak of the batting order. I;m assuming KP can never return, in my heart I’d put him back in the side at no.4
1. Adam Lyth – he doesn’t convince me, but he did get a 100 v NZ and it’s harsh to
drop him after just four test matches, especially when he could have and should have
played in the West Indies.
2. Alastair Cook- I’m no fan of his captaincy, but if he can come up with some more
dogged innings like his 1st innings 96 at Lord’s, then it will help England’s cause.
3. Nick Compton-unfairly jettisoned in 2013, I had the impression that inverted snobbery and his South African background were at the root of the decision to get rid of him, rather than the failures against NZ in May 2013. Averaging 40 or so for Middlesex, which is not great, but he is said to have a good technique against the new ball. Whether he’d come off or not is another matter, but Ballance just cannot continue in the team on recent form.
4. Joe Root- England’s star player, when he scores heavily we usually win, if he has a double failure as he did at Lord’s, then we struggle. I think he’d be OK one place up in the order, assuming the new top three could see off the new ball.
5. Jonny Bairstow- averaging 100 for Yorkshire this year and his swashbuckling 85 helped us to beat NZ in the final ODI, it was about 45 -5 when he came in. Clearly in superb form. Also a good, athletic fielder. I genuinely feel he deserves a chance.
6. Ben Stokes-has scored 52,42,87 and 0 in the series so far, a fine fielder, still a work in progress with his bowling.
7.Jos Buttler – hasn’t scored well in the series so far, but he is clearly talented and needs a run in the side. Wicketkeeping not perfect, but is getting better.
8. Moeen Ali – stylish batsmen who could probably be a bit higher up the order. Taking some useful wickets, and can improve as a bowler. Worth persisting with.
9. Stuart Broad- England’s best bowler so far, did well to take 4 for 83 in Australia’s 1st innings at Lord’s.
10. Mark Wood – struggled at Lord’s but looked promising in his other three test matches so far. Can bat a bit, definitely deserves a run in the side.
11. James Anderson – he had a barren time at Lord’s, but you can’t drop a fine swing bowler with over 400 test wickets to his name. He will bounce back I hope.
In this imaginary team, Bell and Ballance have been the out-of-form players to get the chop. Bell just doesn’t seem to be right mentally and it may be that he is in terminal decline. Reluctant to leave him out, but his form is just too dreadful now. Ballance has such a questionable technique, not moving his feet, that he looks like a walking wicket.
The wonderful folks in charge of our cricket team probably won’t make any changes, however. But until that top four is improved – 52 for 3 or worse in 9 out of 14 innings of late – we won’t win too many games of cricket.
Allegedly, Compton reacted rather strongly to an unfair accusation of malingering after suffering a rib injury, and management reacted badly to what they seem to see as lese majeste.
In the current setup, permission to insult is something of a one way street. I don’t think Compton is any more likely to be recalled than Pietersen; possibly less so.
According to Atherton’s Times column today, “Bell’s position is secure”… unlike his batting.
Compton isn’t the only one. Flower made Rankin play injured at Sydney. He said he was in too much discomfort to play, but Flower basically told him to man up and get out there. Didn’t work particularly well, did it. Sounds typical.
And, of course, Pietersen’s knee.
I’m still amazed at the utter irresponsibility of England in failing to do anything to manage what could have been a career ending injury – if anything making it worse with their at-the-time obsession with PE.
Pietersen’s critics point to his test average of 30 odd in his last year as proof he was in decline. They completely ignore the fact he was playing through injury. Other players went home and gave up when they were injured. It took Pietersen months and months to recover from the injury after the Ashes, which kind of demonstrates how severe the injury was.
Agree. He was basically playing on 1 leg for the last year.
Eoin Morgan?
Our problems are at 2 and 3.
Morgan isn’t the answer to either.
Judging by one day performance, Bairstow and/or Morgan could be switched for Balance and/or Bell, but probably wouldn’t make that much difference to England’s chances.
Sort out 2 and 3, and the middle order will perform more often than not.
Think I’ve just about picked myself up of the floor after Sunday’s “performance”
Been trying to find reasons (that doesn’t make me accept Australia’s greatness)
Were we sulking because we got battered on Thursday and had no answer to their batting, that we couldn’t shake ourselves out of that mindset?
Are we that frightened of Johnson that we can’t even play him on a slow pitch.
Are we just not that very good?
I actually think there are elements of all those that contributed to not just Sunday but the whole abject Lords showing.
I do think we are classic front runners, get ahead of the game and people up their game and join in, as soon as we are behind people go into their shell. This is where Cook has failed as a captain, struggling to rouse people is something he hasn’t got over.
The Johnson one, having never faced a 95mph bowler is something I can’t relate to, but if there are batsmen who are scared then should they be playing?
As for the not very good, we are a young inexperienced side who will have plenty of ups and downs. There is talent but no-one is world class and we will have to suffer this as they grow.
So what can we do; we do have options.
The three in the firing line are Lyth, Ballance & Bell.
After 4 tests it would be incredibly harsh to drop Lyth, and maybe he should get one more go. Ballance after his gritty 60 in Cardiff I thought was getting over his technical problems, I even thought I spotted it in the 2nd innings at Lords but then he got out in tame fashion.
And Ian Bell, the bloke I believe to be our best batsman of the last 10 years, is just in such a shocking rut it could be argued that his eye has gone and he’s cooked.
So drop all 3, change the order around what are the options?
I believe we should bring Hales & Bairstow in, Hales to open, yes it’s a gamble, but I believe it’s one worth taking. It puts a right hander at the top of the order and if he comes off he’ll score quickly.
Many say Bell should bat at 3, but I’d move Root. Purely because Ponting says he should be batting there (and as the best number 3 of the last 20 years he knows a thing)
Bell gets 1 more go at 4, and Bairstow comes in at 5.
Hopefully this shakes a few up and they respond with better performances.
If Root is to be moved up to three, leapfrogging him in the order, then what is the point of Bell ?
I actually quite like the idea of Bell at 5. I’m not sure, but I think he averages quite a lot more at 5 and 6 than he’s ever done at 3 and 4.
I think Cook and Hales would make an interesting combination as they have contrasting strengths. However, I would stick with Lyth for now.
I had a few people suggest to me that Bell should be at 5 as his record his much better.
Would suggest that might be something to do with the partner he had at number 4 though.
So you could go, Lyth opening, Hales 3, Root, Bell, Stokes.
Yes, whatever happens I’d like to see Bell and Root swap places in the order.
There’s no point in making Hales’s introduction to Test cricket Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood at 90mph. It would almost certainly finish him for good. Debutants should be introduced in lesser series – this is what makes the experiment with disingenuous bottler Jonathan Trott in the WI so unforgivable, when Lyth should have been given the chance to settle into Test cricket.
“It would almost certainly finish him for good”.
I’m not in favour of selecting Hales at the moment – but this is a daft argument. Test cricket involves facing the best bowlers and although ideally you might like to ease players in gently sometimes reality gets in the way and it isn’t possible.
Gooch had a tough baptism against Lillee and Thomson, made a pair and came back better. Atherton had a tough introduction against the 1989 Aussies and came back better. This is what a player with anything about them does. How is a player who doesn’t going to cope with playing in front of 90000 Aussies at the MCG or facing Mitch on a pitch with some pace?
Indeed – Cowdrey made his debut in the Ashes down under, against Lindwall and Miller. I believe that Greg Chappell also made his Test debut against England and scored a century. Famously, Hutton made 0 and 1 on debut against a less-than-stellar New Zealand team. Hutton is still rated as one of the greatest ever batsmen. If Hales is good enough, he will make the grade. But, England like to believe that players get better by not playing whereas, in reality, you never know until you put them under the microscope.
“Ponting says he should be batting there (and as the best number 3 of the last 20 years he knows a thing)”
Pontings logic will be Root is the best batsman and the best batsman bats at number 3. This is the reason Smith has moved up, Clarke faced a lot of criticism for not playing at 3 back when he was clearly the best bat in the side after Ponting retired, and we shuffled all sorts of people through the position including Glen Maxwell??? as a result of Clarke refusing it.
It’s true that Australia have long made a habit of playing their best batter at three (as has everyone else, to some extent):
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/676123.html
My objection to Root and Bell swapping places in the order is that you should be moving up as you gain experience, not down. Putting Bell in at 4 or 5 after Root would be an admission of his decline – you might as well drop Bell and move Ballance down there (which is where he should have played in the first place).
For me it’s either Bell 3 and Root 4, or drop him.
There is no long term point to establishing Bell below Root, and based on his form, no short term argument, either.
Good point.
Clearly, making changes in personnel or order is not a knee-jerk panic. England have been something like 40 for 3 in eight of the last 12 innings. As a group, the top four are consistently not providing the starts England need, and there can be no benefit in consistency of selection if that consistency is defined largely by failure.
The overriding principle has to be that any changes must improve the side, not simply replace one risk with another equal risk. There is a case for dropping any of Lyth, Ballance, Bell and Buttler based on batting performances, but this is not a realistic proposition, so the challenge will be to identify where the smart changes have to be made. Come tomorrow, one or more of the guys are going to look up and down the line up and think they have been badly done by. They will just have to get over it and improve.
The consensus seems to be that Bairstow will come in for Ballance and bat at five, and Bell and Root will move up one place in the order. Bell will consider himself lucky if he stays in the side for the third Test, since his recent record is pretty shabby, even compared with Ballance. The venue may just tip the decision in his favour.
Bell is badly out of form and moving him up so he comes in first drop is a big risk. I doubt his confidence has been helped with the ending of his ODI career and the removal of the Test vice-captaincy. It may be clutching at straws to hope that the added responsibility of batting at three will herald any change in his fortunes.
Hales has been mentioned as a possible two or three, but, even as a big fan of the Notts man, I have doubts that his technique, especially in the early overs, is strong enough to withstand the shock and awe of an Ashes onslaught. As a pick, the reward-to-risk ratio is too uncertain. England would have done better to have debuted him against the Windies or New Zealand.
There has been a building clamour for Root to move up to three. It seems to be working for Steve Smith, and Root is probably the best bat in the team. I have two caveats. First, I would hesitate to move him from five, where he has been so successful. Secondly, I would feel more comfortable with Root changing position while England was enjoying a sustained phase of success rather than on the back of a defeat every bit as abject as the fifth Test in Sydney 2014. The problem is, Ballance has to move to five or be dropped altogether, which leaves a vacancy at three, which is the key problem position.
Another option is to bring in James Taylor, who gave the selectors a sharp poke with a brilliant 291 at Horsham yesterday. He bats at four or five for Notts and would be a seamless replacement for Bell. Mick Newell could be an influential advocate for Taylor.
Personally, I would favour dropping Bell for Taylor and either moving Ballance to five or replacing him with Bairstow. Root would have to move to the siege perilous at three, which is not ideal.
I can’t see England dropping Lyth after just four Tests. I hope he has been told that he is a fixture for the remaining matches so he can focus on his role and not worry about being dropped.
I guess we will know better by the end of the day!
The consensus seems to be that Bairstow will come in for Ballance and bat at five
But Ballance is batting at three.
:-)
I agree with most of the rest, though it would be pretty remarkable to bring in Taylor based on one match’s form while ignoring Bairstow’s scintillating season.
I’ve no argument against dropping Ballance – he could probably benefit from some time back in the Yorkshire team – so Taylor/Bairstow with Root at three makes sense.
Gillespie has weighed in on behalf of Bairstow:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/20/jason-gillespie-column-england-jonny-bairstow-talent-ashes-recall
So we made a pact: the Yorkshire coaches – myself included – agreed we would not speak to him about his method and instead judge him solely on his returns. This would be our only feedback. No longer would he have support staff stopping him every second ball in the nets, telling him to change his grip, stance, backlift or alignment. Instead, the only advice would be when he sought it and based solely on his gameplan for any given day. Sure, we still discuss conditions and what his approach for an innings will be, but in the 18 months that have followed his technique has not been brought up.
Got to love the guy…
It’s no mean feat scoring a Test double-hundred overseas, let me tell you.
I’m not totally on the Gillespie bandwagon to be honest. He sounds a bit too laid back for my liking. If a player has a technical flaw as glaring as the one Bairstow had in 2013, it’s an abdication of responsibility to just ignore it. Of course no batsman wants a coach in his ear all day, but there has to be a balance surely?
Maybe the point is that successfully changing a player’s technique has to be initiated by the player ?
I’m sure if they want advice, they’ll get it.
Bairstow certainly looks a different player from two years ago.
Good thoughts Treggers (!) I’d just like to add a couple of things. Big hundreds don’t count for too much at Horsham. I was there a couple of years ago and saw about 700 runs scored in a 40 overs game. Moeen Ali made about 160 off 120 balls (and still finished on the losing side).
I’m also a bit suspicious when it comes to the selectors. How do we know that Newell, as Notts supremo, wouldn’t want to keep Taylor away from England? I’m not sure Taylor is good enough myself, but it’s an interesting debate. I fear the cupboard is bare to be honest.
For those advocating Bairstow, then what do you do with Buttler. From what I can recall Bairstow is a very fair keeper which Buttler demonstrably is not
So do you give Bairstow the gloves and let Buttler play purely as a batsman (albeit a little unconvincingly so far)?
And for all the hand wringing over the batting I think the bowling is a far greater worry and I can’t see a remedy for it. Doctoring pitches isn’t the answer because anything that helps Anderson and Broad will have the Australian bowlers salivating.
England may win another Test or two of course and win back the Ashes, I just can’t see it happening.
So Ballance has been dropped and replaced by Bairstow.
Bell at 3, Root at 4, Bairstow at 5, Stokes at 6.
In other words, there’s now immense pressure on Bell.
Some numbers… since the 2013 Ashes series in England, Bell has made 940 runs at 28. In his last 7 Tests against Australia (the last series and this series so far) he’s managed 295 runs as 22.
So he’s basically playing for his career – but now has to do so while batting at No.3, having been promoted halfway through an Ashes series.
He may well make runs and cover himself in glory. But what if he doesn’t? Presumably he gets dropped and Root finishes the series as England’s No.3 batsman.
In that event, with Ballance and Bell both tried at No.3 and then discarded, those who said good riddance to KP can brace for a whole new round of scrutiny. Because if you leave KP out, you can’t then cycle through three different batsmen at No.3 and not expect people to conclude that a mistake was made. Particularly if the series is lost.
All of which is true – but it’s not as though Bell isn’t now playing for his career in whichever position, and given his form over the last dozen innings, he’s probably relieved it’s Ballance and not him who’s been dropped.
In any event, I think Bell has a better chance of succeeding at 3 against Australia than Ballance.
(& I don’t think you’ll get too many arguments about the rectitude of the Pietersen ukase here.)
The point is that the England have promoted a player to No.3 not out of strength but out of weakness.
Bell was already under pressure. That goes up a notch now that he’s at No.3. If he fails again, there’s nowhere to hide.
Re Bairstow for Ballance. Do the England selectors have a long-term strategy or is the team being picked on a match by match basis? If they chop and change every time they suffer a heavy defeat, there will be a lot of casualties by the end of this series.
Ballance may have been poor but seems a bit unlucky to be the only player to be left out.
It must be because he’s South African … I mean Zimbabwean ;-)
I think they had to make at least one change – it was between Lyth, Ballance and Bell.
Ballance, frankly, looks likes his technical flaws have been exposed so it makes sense to drop him. He’s young enough to fight his way back.
Dropping Bell would have been a much bigger decision, effectively ending his career – and it would have left England with no back-up plan if they have to drop Ballance later (apart from promoting Root to 3, which they seem to be avoiding).
And dropping Lyth would mean they have to find another opener – trickier than simply bringing in Bairstow and shuffling the middle order. Lyth, to his credit, did score a century 2 Tests ago.
It’s unusual…normally when England lose, the bowlers get changed. I think one of Ballance, Lyth and Bell had to go based on their returns so far this year (although Cook is not doing so well either but he is, of course, impregnable) but the bowling has question marks against it.
There has been a call for “English” pitches. If Edgbaston is a greentop (as so many pundits seem to want), how will that help Anderson or Stokes or Wood? Broad is the only real seam bowler in that attack? He was already bowling more penetratively than the rest so is he expected to do everybody’s work? In any case, Hazlewood will do just as well, maybe better given his extra 5 mph pace.
It’s certainly a big gamble moving Bell up to no.3 in the order. Edgbaston is his home ground and I think he has managed one century for Warwickshire this season, but his run of low scores in test matches from Grenada onwards doesn’t bode well. The England management are assuming the extra responsibility will bring out the best in him. He made 60 in the 2nd innings at Cardiff, full of lovely shots, but it wasn’t a pressure situation as England were looking to build on their 1st innings lead and press ahead in the game. In the real pressure-pot of Lord’s, he looked flawed once more. He dropped some slip catches in recent matches, and you do wonder if his reactions have just slowed that fraction so as to make it harder to cope with the genuine pace of Johnson and Starc. I would love to see the stats on how many times Bell has made big scores under real pressure. He certainly had a good home series in 2013, but can he rekindle that sort of form when he is averaging about 11 since Grenada ? I would love to see him rediscover his best form, but I have serious doubts.
I’m pleased to see Bairstow given a chance again on the back of his 100 average in county cricket. As I recall, he is also an athletic fielder like Stokes, quick across the turf. It will of course be hard for him if the top order keeps collapsing again.
Bell playing for his career? The Bell debate reminds me a bit of the Gower debate in the 1980s where one of the most gifted batsmen of his generation was pilloried by certain sections of the media and some former colleagues. Gower deserved better at that time and so does Bell now.