Yesterday’s game at the Rose Bowl would’ve made the authorities purr. It was made to order. England batted first and registered a hefty 373-3 – with golden boy Jos Buttler scoring an extraordinary 110 off just 55 balls – and then Pakistan put up a very respectable fight but eventually fell 12 runs short.
Those in attendance witnessed a total of 734 runs in 100 overs. What a day! The only downside, of course, is they saw just 10 wickets. Is this a healthy balance between bat and ball? Hell no. But apparently this is what the public want.
Personally I think it’s possible to have too much of a good thing. If all football matches finished 8-8, and hat-tricks became as routine as centuries on featherbeds, then individual goals would be stimulating but less than orgasmic. And that’s my fear with modern white ball cricket. The more sixes disappear over the grandstands the less awe-inspiring the sight of a six disappearing over a grandstand becomes. But hey ho.
What cannot be denied, however, is that there’s no better exponent of a six over the grandstand than Jos Buttler. The bloke’s a freak. He’s certainly the best white ball player I’ve seen in England colours. I think only Kevin Pietersen comes close. Yes we’ve had some wonderful ODI technicians over the years like Neil Fairbrother, and let’s not forget how special Joe Root is in ODIs too, but nobody beats Buttler for sheer ‘f**k me that’s brilliant’ brilliance.
I remember the days when players might occasionally blast a 25 ball half-century. The efforts of Shahid Afridi in 2005 and 2007 were amazing. But the fact that Buttler can sustain this kind of assault for twice as long without getting out is remarkable.
Perhaps the biggest compliment I can give Jos is that I’m not at all surprised that he’s done something phenomenal yet again. But perhaps that’s a problem too (for cricket in general). If an innings of 110 off a paltry 55 balls doesn’t surprise anyone anymore then surely feats like this will eventually lose their lustre?
Anyway, back to game itself. Every single one of England’s batsmen impressed. Roy made 87, Bairstow 51, Root 40, and Morgan 71. All of them looked in good form although Roy seemed a tad rusty early on.
None of Pakistan’s bowlers impressed. Conditions were against them but I still find it strange that Mohammad Amir can’t get into this ODI side. Surely form is temporary but class is permanent?
England’s innings was put into perspective, however, when Pakistan batted. Fakhar Zaman made a superb 138, and for a period it looked like Buttler might score 110 off 55 balls and actually finish on the losing side.
It wasn’t to be though. England’s bowlers finally got their shit together and managed to restrict Pakistan at the death – thanks to some sound tactics (bowling full and wide of off-stump) and some lenient umpiring which let several balls close to the wide markers go unpunished.
Overall, however, it was a chastening day to be an England bowler. And another good day to be Jofra Archer. The Sussex paceman did well to miss this game on this pitch. It was one of those ironic situations where his omission made his longterm inclusion more likely.
England’s selectors might feel that the management missed a trick by resting him though. This was just the kind of occasion – flat pitch, no movement etc – when we might have seen if Archer’s extra pace and nasty yorkers would’ve made a difference. Indeed, if England wanted to find out if Archer really is the missing piece of the jigsaw then this was precisely the game he should’ve played in.
Predictably England’s attack suffered in his absence. It’s been the same story for years. We simply don’t possess a single world class bowler. Indeed, the attack looks very lightweight on paper if the spinners don’t perform. Although I thought David Willey did quite well yesterday, Woakes and Plunkett didn’t look particularly threatening at all. I’m glad I don’t have to decide which bowler England will ultimately leave out.
Before I sign off, I’d quickly like to mention a provocative article about Jofra Archer by Jonathan Liew in The Independent. It’s well worth a read, even if you don’t agree with its thesis. Basically Liew argues that those who either disagree with (or are sceptical about) Archer’s likely inclusion in the World Cup squad are displaying a nativist attitude. Why? Because they didn’t object when Eoin Morgan, Kevin Pietersen, Boyd Rankin, or any of England’s past imports were parachuted into the side.
I wouldn’t normally touch debates like this with a fifty foot pole – as a blogger you’re bound to offend half your readers and the inexorable Twitter rows are too exhausting to contemplate. However, because I’ve written previously that the opposition to Archer’s inclusion seemed odd, I thought I’d hesitantly dip my toe into the water on this occasion.
Overall I think Liew makes a compelling case. I’m not sure I agree with him entirely but I do think it’s thought provoking. The crucial aspect for me is this: the main counter-argument put forward by Liew’s critics (i.e. that Archer’s inclusion is only controversial because he’s coming into a settled and successful side) is clearly flawed.
England’s batting order is settled and successful. England’s bowling attack is not. It’s settled but not very successful. In fact, we conceded more runs than any other major nation from the middle of 2017 to the middle of 2018 (i.e. the last time I looked).
The truth is that England’s recent success is almost entirely due to our explosive batting order. Consequently including Archer would be a necessary step to remedy a very obvious problem. As yesterday’s ODI clearly demonstrates.
England’s players and the media should therefore be welcoming Jofra with open arms. And the fact his inclusion has been questioned by some is bizarre. I’m not sure whether this is down to nativism, stupidity, or just the media desperately to find a story where there isn’t one, but I certainly think it’s worth exploring.
And even if you don’t particularly care, the reaction to the article has been fascinating and, dare I say it, quite entertaining too. Jonathan Agnew was apoplectic and ended up calling Liew all kinds of four letter words which I couldn’t possibly publish on this family blog ;-).
The whole furore surrounding Archer’s international future has been absolutely bonkers. Just as bonkers, in fact, as Buttler’s pyrotechnics at the Rose Bowl.
James Morgan
I may be wrong, but were the circumstances the same though? i.e. ECB had a policy which they changed specifically for Archer as he had not passed the window he needed to spend here to qualify? I thought there are differences with the other cases mentioned although happy to defer to someone who has greater knowledge of the details.
Regardless it’s pretty clear that they need him in the team though. Wish he had played yesterday so we could have seen what kind of difference he might have made.
“ECB had a policy which they changed specifically for Archer”
Liew referenced this in his article, which, while slightly provocative, certainly did not deserve the utterly disproportionate reaction from Agnew, who as a senior professional broadcaster/journalist ought to know better.
Though I tend to agree with Liew, Agnew might justifiably have argued with him, but abuse is not argument.
And looks even worse when it appears not to be the only time he’s resorted to it:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/may/13/jonathan-agnew-row-with-journalist-bbc
On a different note I am starting to think Willey has earned his place and offers something different, and is particularly useful in more “English” conditions.
I think the batting line up is pretty clear (Roy, Bairstow, Root, Morgan, Buttler, Stokes). I suggest the key for bowling is variety therefore and would include both Ali and Rashid, Willey, Archer, and Woakes / Curran / Plunkett fighting it out for the last place.
I think Willey has done pretty well. Plus we shouldn’t forget that he’s also a very dangerous batsman & bowls left arm. I think Plunkett is most vulnerable. Or maybe Tom Curran. Woakes isn’t safe either, but the selectors may see him as the reserve for Stokes if the latter picks up an injury.
Flat pitches equals batting success but the downside is bowling failures. It’s the same coin. If the game had been played on a green seamer would we be in awe of bowling figures and skills galore and cross with struggling (and collapsing) batsmen. And yes it is turgid despite the flying boundaries without pressure of losing wickets. It’s like an enactment rather than a game. I think it will give a poor idea of cricket which is much more thrilling when there’s a contest between bat and ball.
Personally I’m finding 50 over cricket more or less an extension of T20-let’s are how many we can wack into the crowd. It all becames, mmm dare I say a bit of a bore. This pitch was a flat track road that most International batsmen would have made hay on. The fact that Pakistan almost got there says it all. I just fear we are a one track pony, if we get some bowler friendly pitches, can we adapt? The Test side rarely can. This game doesn’t really tell me all that much in the difference between these two sides at least.
True. We didn’t really learn much yesterday. Had the pitch given the bowlers some help OR Archer had played, then it might have been a better learning experience.
This this thisn
Jonathan Liew is completely right in his analysis sadly. What can be the problem when “Archer is 24 years old, and British. It says so on his passport: the only passport he’s ever had.” Many of British descent were born overseas…Cowdrey first learned to play cricket from the servants on his father’s tea plantation in India where he was born!
Talking of West Indies, Buttler’s hitting prowess reminds me of another wonderful striker of the ball in the days before helmets, bigger bats, flat tracks and excessive fielding and bowling restrictions – Viv Richards!
I didn’t personally think there was anything… nativist.. about the objections to Archer. Just that he’s a superstar and the rest of the quicks are not…
Though having read that I’m more than starting to wonder.
Powerful bit a writing…
These manufactured run gluts leave me cold. I didn’t watch a ball and haven’t the slightest interest in seeing the highlights.
As for the Liew/Agnew contretemps, a plague on both their houses. Liew is the cleverst kid in class who like to rub people up. Sometimes he gets it right (like on Blofeld or his latest piece on the plans for the Champions League in football), other times like here he’s way off the mark (explain Ottis Gibson or Chris Jordan if he’s right). As for Agnew, as I understand it, it wasn’t the article itself that triggered him but Liew’s subsequent tweet “[Agnew] barely bothers to conceal his disdain for the great unwashed of the written press, like a French aristo pinching his nostrils as he strolls through a peasant market, lest he get an unwanted whiff of rotting chicken giblets.” There’s hardly anything exactly actionable here but it ripped of the phoney face of “niceness” that figures like Agnew adopt and showed what they really feel when they don’t get due deference.
There’s an interesting article at the DT where county groundsmen admit what we all know, that there’s blatant pitch doctoring. One says, “It really comes down to the coaches. What doesn’t get picked up on is that it is the coaches who prepare the pitches. We do as we’re told” and another, “Unless he is told by the coach, the groundsman goes out to produce the best pitch possible. The less you get interfered with, the better pitches you’ll get. But groundsmen get interfered with a lot. The coaches need to win matches.” Since the ECB do the same for home Tests, they can hardly do anything about it and have given up any pretence that they are even trying.
That’s so sad. I remember there was an Indian groundsman who rebelled when asked to produce a raging turner. The Indian team were outraged when he produced a decent wicket for the game.
Only utter idiots are happy with what we have now. Slog fests
What’s even funnier is peoooe are still jumping on the stokes bandwagon.l even though he currently can’t bowl and it appears might not get back to being a regular bowler.. his batting really isn’t good enough alone after all
It does make you wonder what would have happened with Stokes if Sarfraz had posted a slip, as he should have done. A duck and 4 indifferent overs is no return for his retention. With the present glut of white ball ‘all rounders’ we could easily play 6 bowlers with Moin batting at 6. Batting isn’t the issue, it’s restricting sides in the field. We can’t keep having to chase 350 every game and expect to win the World Cup. Somewhere along the line we’ll come a cropper against better bowling sides and certainly better fielding sides than Pakistan.
“As for Agnew, as I understand it, it wasn’t the article itself that triggered him but Liew’s subsequent tweet “[Agnew] barely bothers to conceal disdain…. ”
That wasn’t a tweet, it was a line from an article about Cook.
Agnew then completely proved him wrong by repeatedly screaming “C**T!!” in private messages to him. Oh how he showed his lack of disdain.
We would be doing cricket a great service if we allowed the curators (no, not talking ‘Strine…it gets over the tricky gender specificity minefields of the modern day!) to do their job and prepare good cricket wickets.
The pressure has always been on the groundsman to produce a lasting track. Even in test matches they are fined when the pitches start to ‘misbehave’ early on. It is difficult in this county when we produce flat batting tracks to give them pace and bounce, especially at this time of year when rain prevents the ground getting hard. How do you prepare good cricket wickets for a one dayer, where to be fair conditions should be as similar as possible for both sides. The toss shouldn’t decide the outcome.
To me the art of pace variation has gone backwards in recent years. Few bowlers seem to possess artful slower deliveries or a decent Yorker. That’s not the fault of the pitches or the batsmen. The amount of times the on paper decent Pakistan attack ended up bowling half volleys and long has yesterday was nobody’s business. Our bowlers were better, particularly at the death, but didn’t show enough imagination, just kept plugging away in the same areas. Woakes and Stokes don’t look match fit to me and Plunkett was unusually subdued, but I thought Willey bowled pretty well. Maybe we should be looking more at the equipment we use, like a maximum weight for a bat and a ball with a bigger seam that more readily swings.
As for the Archer article, how about Tony and Ian Greig, Allan Lamb and Robin Smith in addition to KP. They all learnt their cricket in South Africa before plying their trade over here. Because we have the most comprehensive domestic scene in the world it will always attract more multinational players, just like the Premiership in footie.
I didn’t agree with Liew’s article in the slightest. Firstly, it is founded on a straw man; there has been much opposition to the amount of South Africans in the England team, and a questioning of such a policy/motives. Secondly, this was a topical argument on the rights and wrongs of the decision to change a rule, as opposed to when merely featuring South Africans all well and truly qualified because of residency; we were always going to have this argument over Archer because the ECB needed to alter their own rules. Thirdly, we’re discussing the impact of a player on a settled and highly successful team; the impact of team selection is a valid argument to have when one of those bowlers (Plunkett etc) will be dropped. We’d be having this debate if the rules didn’t require altering and/or Archer did not have a connection with the West Indies. Indeed, we’d find the answer much easier if this one-day side were not so successful.
Two things (a) the debate hasn’t been about changing the rules, it’s been about how bringing in an outsider to a successful team might harm the team culture (team culture / disruption was never mentioned with the South Africans), and (b) the team might be successful but the bowling hasn’t been; therefore the successful argument doesn’t stack up.
As I say in the article I’m not sure why the Archer case if different, but it has been different from previous players. And it can’t be the success team thing because Archer is the type of bowler our unsuccessful bowling attack has been crying out for.
To use an analogy from a previous article it’s inconceivable that Sir Alex Ferguson wouldn’t have bought Eric Cantona, or Barcelona wouldn’t have bought Messi, because he risked upsetting the culture of an already successful team. It’s nuts. So why would anyone say this about Archer?
It’s either nativism or crap journalism i.e. trying to find a problem where there isn’t one. They didn’t even have this argument when Pietersen, who actually already had a reputation for falling out with people, was parachuted into an already very successful team ahead of the very successful Graham Thorpe on the eve of the 2005 Ashes. Some might have debated whether it was right to pick South Africans, but nobody said this bloke might disrupt team culture
Cantona is certainly a good example here, but not Messi. Barcelona seem to get a lot of stick in this way. Messi was signed by them as a 9 year old and came over with his father. Most of the great Barcelona team of recent years had been playing together there for years before they had that success, a bit like the Man Utd ‘class of 92’. To me it was always showed great foresight and faith in scouting by the club. More teams could learn from this in many sports. I don’t have an issue with any club scouring the world for young talent and spending the time to bring it on. To me Messi as a footballer is Spanish, not Argentinian, as they have had little to do with his development and the fact that he has had little success with them internationally would indicate he doesn’t feel what you should performing for your country, because to all intents and purposes he has assumed a new nationality. Makes you wonder what Spain would have achieved with him in that side. As far as I can make out the reason for his reluctance to go for Spanish citizenship were the death threats he and his family received when this was proposed.
In a world where people move around a lot more dual nationality is going to become more of an issue, so all sports need to look at updating their rules to allow for this.
If Messi had declared for Spain, they would be presenting World and Euro Cups to them before the tournaments stared
Would have been great to see him succeed on the world stage. As a footballer he’s different class to anyone I’ve ever seen, including Ronaldo, but he doesn’t seem to have that killer instinct at the top level that Ronaldo has in spades. Maybe the sheer enjoyment of playing for Spain amidst players he knows well would have produced a more well rounded player. He would have been part of a team rather than the individual expected to carry the team, which always seemed to weigh heavily on him.
Messi came through the Barca academy as a kid. So he didn’t disrupt owt
Bad example re: Messi. But I just meant any old football signing, especially one who’s world class. I don’t follow European football much, or the Champions League, so all I know about Messi is that he’s apparently brilliant for Barca but has failed to deliver in world cups … unlike Ronaldo, who has always played better when I’ve seen him ;-)
Slightly off topic Morgs, but I always think if wierd that people say KP was picked instead of Thorpe. I think it was Bell who was picked ahead of one of England’s finest batsmen of the modern era, on the back of a daddy hundred in against Bangladesh if I remember correctly and then proceeded to score very few (in that Ashes series, made up for it later!).
Absolutely. It should have been between KP, Thorpe, and Bell. But bizarrely Duncan Fletcher was completely enamoured with Bell and decided that he was the right man to bat 4 in that series. Bell was therefore inked in ahead of the other two, leaving one spot between KP and Thorpe. It was complete insanity, as Thorpe was well respected by the Aussies on account of his excellent record against Australia at their very best. England would’ve won that series more comfortably had they picked the right team. Bell scored a pair of fifties at Old Trafford I recall, but hardly scored a run in the other 4 tests. I was always a big Bell fan but that series was too soon for him.
If I had to go for the best test match middle order batsman in my lifetime Thorpe would be well up there above the likes of KP, Gower, Gatting and certainly Bell (I say this as a Warwick man and big fan of the little fella). Being solid and dependable doesnt make the headlines. The only issue I would have with him is he didn’t convert enough fifties onto hundreds, a bit like Root.
I’d love to see how Butler and co would manage against the likes of Ambrose and Walsh. There’d be no 50 ball 100’s that’s for sure.
I watched Jos develop at Taunton, and you knew then he was going to go on to be an absolute star for England, he could hit it for 6 anywhere he wanted – even directly behind the wicket keeper – and came in consistently hitting brutal innings almost from ball 1. It was an exciting batting line up that inexplicably never won a trophy
Oh and Liew is talking nonsense if he thinks nobody said anything about the south african and Ireland contingent turning out for England. Kevin Pietersen’s first name became “South African Born”
Bonkers seems a pretty good summary of this Snapchat stunt some England players have been put up to.
It’s just a bit of fun and trying to broaden the appeal of the game…. yes, of course it is.
And what’s wrong with that. If more professsional sportsmen enjoyed themselves doing what is after all a job in a million for them, rather than moaning about the stress the pressure creates and the mental problems they have dealing with the celebrity of success, sport in general would be better entertainment, which after all is its prime purpose. However, try telling that to a footie manager that these days. The pressure to win creates so much more misery and discontent than enjoyment. Maybe ‘play up play up and play the game’ is not such a bad motto to aim for even in this age of the professional.