Back To Balanced?

Is this tour a new start for England’s test team? It’s beginning to feel that way. We have a new head coach, who has made some encouraging noises thus far, and better still England are likely to take the field at Mount Maunganui with a balanced XI for the first time in a long time.

When Ed Smith took over as national selector he wanted to play what some might call ‘total cricket’. There was an emphasis on trying to revolutionise the game by picking a plethora of all-rounders and trying to get the best eleven ‘cricketers’ on the field. This often ended up with England selecting six bowlers (including four or five right arm medium-fast seamers) but hardly anyone who could score big hundreds.

This plan was never going to work and it didn’t. Test cricket is, and always will be, a game in which specialists thrive. World class all-rounders – by which I mean players who would be worth their place in the side as a batsman or bowler alone – are actually quite rare. Look how long it took us to replace Botham with Flintoff and then Flintoff with Stokes. These guys don’t grow on trees. Therefore Smith’s plan essentially meant packing the side with bits and pieces players: cricketers who weren’t quite good enough in either discipline.

This ‘total cricket’ approach often gave the appearance of ‘balance’ but it was always superficial. Fortunately, however, it looks like Chris Silverwood’s England will take a more balanced, or perhaps I should say traditional, approach to comprising a Test XI.

England are likely to take the field in the first Test with two stodgy openers, a number 3 who’s used to batting in the top order, a number 4 who likes batting at 4, a proper specialist batsman (rather than a second string wicket-keeper masquerading as a proper batsman) at 5, a world-class allrounder at 6, a batsman-keeper at 7, a bowler who can bat at bit at 8, and then three specialist bowlers.

Burns, Sibley, Denly, Root, Pope, Stokes, Buttler, Curran, Archer, Leach, Broad.

I don’t know about you but I rather like the look of this team. It already looks a hundred times better than the side that lost in the West Indies and then drew The Ashes. Yes it’s not perfect – I’d prefer a better keeper than Buttler and a better bowler than Curran in an ideal world – but the intention seems spot on.

This XI basically covers all bases. There are enough batsmen who can bat time, enough batsmen who can attack, and then five bowlers who all offer something different – someone with genuine pace in Archer, a tall accurate seamer in Broad, a left-armer who swings the ball for variety, and then an aggressive golden arm in Stokes who can often manufacture wickets through sheer force of personality.

And then there’s Leach who offers both control and wicket-taking potential when he’s bowling well, plus a bit of part-time off-spin from Root to turn the ball the other way.

Much will depend on the pitch of course – as I pointed out yesterday England have struggled to bowl sides out with the Kookaburra ball on benign surfaces for years – but England should at least have enough skill and wherewithal to keep the opposition contained if wickets are hard to come by. Then we can look forward to the likes of Jimmy Anderson, Mark Wood, and Olly Stone returning to the squad and adding more firepower in the future.

One just hopes that the top order can finally find some consistency. Although most eyes will be on Dom Sibley I sense that Burns will be a key man. I was impressed with Rory in The Ashes, where he managed to score some runs against arguably the best attack in the world, but we’ve had so many false dawns when it comes to openers that nothing should be taken for granted. Burns now needs to consolidate his place both in New Zealand and South Africa. Only then can we start talking about him as an England lynchpin.

It will also be interesting to see how Joe Denly goes. We all know that he’s not going to be a long-term option but it would be nice if he could nail down a place while Zak Crawley develops on the sidelines. England have never really had a succession plan but this one looks readymade.

Oddly enough I’m not too concerned about the middle-order. I think Root will score plenty now that he’s back at 4, Pope is arguably the most fancied young batsman we’ve produced for a while, and Stokes and Buttler are more than good enough to be reliable Test players at 6 and 7 respectively. England might even prefer Stokes to bat above Pope while the youngster acclimatises. If so I wouldn’t have a problem with this.

So how are you feeling about England’s immediate prospects on this tour? I guess we might have a slightly different perspective if England prefer Woakes over Curran and we field four right-arm seamers again. But somehow I doubt that Silverwood, being a bowler by trade, will make this mistake.

James Morgan

Subscribe to receive new article notifications via email

We keep your data private and never share it with third parties.

19 comments

  • I must admit, I wasn’t over the moon with the announcement of CS’s appointment, but he has started soundly. Incidentally, why do the media refer to Root as ‘dropping down’ the order as if it was a demotion. I know ‘Root restored to rightful place’ isn’t as newsworthy, but it is rather more accurate – and I’m delighted to see it !

    • Me too. I would’ve preferred a more experienced coach who might help the batsmen but now that Silverwood is in situ we should all support him. He’s made a good start thus far, has made encouraging noises about the batsmen digging in and batting time, and I thought he shuffled the pack in the T20s nicely.

  • I also think it’s great that we’re trying to revert to a more standard XI composition.

    What I would say in defence of the selectors though, which isn’t something I often do, is that I don’t think having a team over-stuffed with all-rounders and keepers was ever the aim, it just worked out that way.

    We’ve tried however many specialist batsmen, even if you just look at the middle-order there’s been Compton, Vince, Ballance, Westley, Malan and Pope (plus Duckett and Roy who opened then dropped down). The problem is that those guys didn’t score enough runs and didn’t (positively) influence games, so were dropped. And had anyone from the long list of openers done well, then we could have brought in another opener to fill #3 to avoid playing a middle-order player a place too high.

    Meanwhile, Ali, Buttler, Bairstow, Foakes, Curran and Woakes have played and have done as well as those guys with the bat, usually better actually, as well as offering a second string to their bow – they have been positively influencing games.

    So too many of these players made themselves difficult to drop and we ended up with too many of them. So I can see why we ended up in the position we did.

    Of course, the response to this is that the selectors/management should have made strong decisions and insisted on a certain structure to the team. And yes, there were a couple of specialist batsmen who maybe should have been tried in the middle order – at various points good arguments could have been made for Hildreth, Northeast, Livingstone, Clarke and maybe some others.

    Will be interesting to see what happens next. We still need Denly and Pope to score runs. If they don’t, the temptation to bring Bairstow back will increase – if he does, who keeps? If Woakes or Curran impress, it will be also be tempting to keep them when Anderson returns and revert to an unnecessary 6-man attack.

  • Looks good to me but I would replace Denly with Crawley – Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Root, Pope, Stokes, Buttler, Curran, Archer, Leach. Broad.

  • I’m not as sure as you seem to be that Stokes would get in to the side as a bowler if he was a batting bunny

    In fact a batting average of 35 probably wouldn’t have him picked as a batsman either if he didn;t bowl – I know he has done when he’s not been fit to bowl but it shouldn’t

    As you say a true all rounder should be able to be selected as a batsman or bowler if they couldn’t do the other. A test batsman needs to be averaging 40+ and a bowler under 30. To be honest I’m not sure there have been too many players in world cricket who fit into that category. Jacques Kallis was probably the last one ? I doubt Flintoff would have been picked solely as a batsman either

    • I think fitness would be the main issue if Stokes was merely a bowler. When fully fit he can bowl quickly and is certainly worth a place as a 4th seamer. But how often is he 100%?

      I agree that a batsman should average over 40. The caveat I’d add with Stokes is that (a) he seems to be improving so I expect that average to increase, and (b) he seems to make crucial runs at crucial times, something which somewhat outweighs his overall average. I’d rather have a player who averages 36 but scores match-defining inns when the team desperately needs it than someone who merely cashes in big time when it’s easy-going. But yes I think overall your point holds water. Flintoff often disappointed me as a batter but on song in 2005 he more than pulled his weight at 6. He needed to do it more thought and I think he ended up as more of a 7.

    • In my opinion… if we go off 40+ average for batsmen, 30- average for bowlers, then for all-rounders I reckon 35 for both batting and bowling is a fair target. Expecting them to average 40+ and 30- is unrealistic – it’s all-time-great territory.

    • At last.. someone talking sense. Stokes seems to still be regarded as some messiah who is ‘world class’ with bat and ball. Truth is, he’s not good enough at either so has to eithe rbowl and bat or drop out. He can’t hold his spot on one discipline alone

      • I think if you talked to any opposing captain they would regard Stokes as the main individual threat as batsman, bowler and fielder. He has that X-factor you can’t coach. Archer has it with the ball and Root with the bat, but neither has a track record as a match winner to compare.
        He is a special talent and should be nursed to ensure he stays fit as much as possible. To me he compares favourably as an all rounder with most of that golden generation of the 1970’s when Botham, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee were playing their trade, along with a bevvy of South Africans, such as Clive Rice, Eddie Barlow and Mike Proctor.
        I’m sure you won’t agree with this but I saw all the above play and to me Stokes is in that class and certainly compares favourably to Flintoff, who I always felt disappointed as a batsman, though he became a great bowler towards the end of his career. Stokes has plenty of time to improve his averages and certainly ranks as a great fielder, either close to the bat or in the outfield.

  • That XI does indeed look better than most recent XIs. With Root back at four where he is best suited and a top three who all appear well suited to their positions there is at least a chance that Pope will not be walking out to resume his test career with the score reading 30-3 or thereabouts. The only bowling concern is Curran, who if the ball does not deviate will not pose much of a threat, but even then he and Archer could combine well with the new ball (Broad coming on 1st change at the end of Archer’s burst).

  • I think people are jumping the gun when saying that England look better than recent times. Burns and Crawley are still unproven at Test level. Denley is a stop gap, Pope has potential but is unproven, Buttler has 1 test century to his name and Curran is useless abroad and Root doesn’t rate Woakes.

    We need to wait to see how they get on in NZ and South Africa before drawing any firm conclusions. On a positive note, Root should score runs at 4, Archer looks a real find and we have Jimmy coming back next summer.

    • If England don’t whitewash South Africa, that will be a good result for South Africa. They have gone down the cliff, partly due to English counties buying a fair bit of talent. Administrative hubris, and tough economic times in South Africa taking care of the rest. Honestly, a series against Zimbabwe would be just as non-interesting.

    • Good god. SA are now a really really poor team!! Anything but a convincing win is a win to SA !! This is not the SA of 2008-2012

  • Just hope that this attempt to select red ball style players in their proper positions is given a proper chance to succeed. We’ve had to put with years of inconsistency, especially with the bat, due to repeated selections of white ball players, often out of position, so this new and welcome change of tack needs to be persevered with. All we need now is Foakes out there in place of Pope, allowing Butler to bat higher in the order so we can find out if he has what it takes to build an innings at test level and not run out of partners again.
    The bowling is a worry, their being no Anderson and Curran is no substitute for him. If the top 7 can’t make the runs he’s not likely to change the game and his bowling is still short of test class. Am a big fan of Plunkett and feel he still has a year or two to contribute at test level, not just white ball.

    • I think I’d be inclined to drop Butler who hasn’t really done it in Tests yet, play Pope who looks more like a Test batsman and certainly include Foakes. Thats a glaring admission.

      Not convinced about Stone, Wood or Anderson long term from a fitness perspective. Plunkett has been pants for Surrey in red ball and I don’t know why we signed him, also been injured. Woakes, if fit, will be better than Curran abroad, but it could swing in NZ and his left arm option is a plus. But pleased otherwise with the batting line-up.

      • Butler seems to have become a nick if figure to the selectors and you can see is making strides to adapt his game to the longer format. It’s just his keeping that is something of a liability at this level.
        Plunkett’s one of those players that seem to be able to raise his game consistently for the big occasions. He’ll never be a world beater but always seems to chip in when others aren’t. Just feel he’s another example of the face not fitting as he comes across as a pretty abraisive character, whereas the likes of Curran and Butler appear to be more along yes men lines.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting