Those of you with young kids might know a cute / irritating cartoon called Paw Patrol. It’s about a band of puppies who solve crimes and generally frustrate the evil machinations of the feline group ‘Cat-astrophe’. One of the puppies is called Chase. And he’s as harmless as wet cotton wool. A bit like Roston Chase’s bowling in fact.
The lesson we can learn from Paw Patrol is that you don’t need to be frightening to succeed. You can appear completely innocuous, lack teeth, yet still destroy a bunch of ineffectual pussies. Just bowl it straight and wait for your opponents to implode.
Yesterday was one of the most depressing days I can recall as an England fan. And boy we’ve had a few. To surrender 8 wickets to a part-time spinner is humiliating. And all supporters have a right to be angry.
How did embarrassment happen? I guess it was a combination of fatigue and ineptitude. However, there’s one mitigating factor to consider. Although it was Chase who picked up the wickets, many of these should be attributed to the ferocious fast bowling of Shannon Gabriel, and to a lesser extent Roach and Joseph, at the other end. England’s batsmen were probably so relieved to escape the firing line that they relaxed too much when the part-time slow bowler came on.
This is so excuse though. England were absolutely woeful yesterday. With the exception of Rory Burns, who made a very pleasant and highly encouraging 80 odd, we were simply crap. Jonny Bairstow was a bit unlucky to get strangled down the legside but the others were pathetic.
Joe Root was roughed up and then guided the ball to slip (what the hell was he thinking?), Jos Buttler casually chipped the ball to mid-wicket, and Moeen Ali irresponsibly decided to give slip some catching practice. It was a deplorable shot that any self respecting international cricketer should be ashamed of. Most specialist batsmen would be dropped after that.
But perhaps I’ve inadvertently hit the nail on the head there. Any ‘specialist’ batsman would indeed be dropped after playing a shot like that. But England don’t have many specialists. We have Burns, Root, and then a bunch of all-rounders – guys who don’t have it in them to compile match defining innings very often unless everything is in their favour. The best they can do with any regularity is ‘chip in’.
At one point yesterday I even began to challenge whether England’s ‘all-rounders’ should be defined as such. After all, a true all-rounder is traditionally defined as a player who’s good enough to make the team as either a batsman or a bowler (like Ian Botham or Imran Khan). The sad truth is that only one of England’s ‘all-rounders’ belongs in this bracket: Ben Stokes. And then he should be batting at 6 or 7 rather 5 (especially after bowling so many overs).
This presents England’s braintrust with a bit of a problem. If the likes of Moeen, Rashid and (at this early stage of his development) Sam Curran cannot be called ‘all-rounders’ then what are they? I’m afraid the only recognised term in common usage I can think of is ‘bits and pieces cricketers’. And test cricket is no place for bits and pieces cricketers – no matter how much Ed Smith and England’s management pretend it is.
So where does the team go from here? England have two options. We either keep picking guys who aren’t good enough to be consistent – there’s a reason why England’s performances oscillate wildly you know – or we go back to basics, stop being cute, and pick the best specialists available. And that means immediate recalls for Stuart Broad and Jack Leach. Ben Stokes is the only all-rounder we need to balance the XI. How many bowlers does a side need for heaven sake?
The problem, of course, is that our batting cupboard is looking a tad threadbare. My solution therefore would be to tell the likes of Buttler that they’ve got to stop hiding down the order, pull their weight as a specialist batsman by scoring the centuries any specialist batsman should be expected to make, or make way for someone who can. And this applies to Bairstow at 3 too. If he can’t hack it at first drop then England have to make some tough decisions and choose between Jos OR Jonny at 5. At the moment we’re shoehorning players into the side even if this means forcing square pegs into round holes.
The big question is whether England are brave enough to admit they’ve got their overall philosophy wrong – a philosophy that can only ever result in an erratic and unpredictable side. Unfortunately I don’t think they are. I just can’t see Ed Smith and Co admitting that they’re not so clever after all. They’ve invested too much in certain players. What’s more, they can always shrug their shoulders and point to that bare cupboard.
However, if they were to do the latter then at least they might stop pretending that packing the side with bits and pieces cricketers is some sort of genius ploy. They’ll finally have to admit that it’s actually a highly inconvenient necessity because our domestic system simply isn’t producing the quality red ball specialists it used to. And at that point the ECB will have to explain why.
We all know the answer to that, of course. But the wider public may not. And they should.
James Morgan
It really was one of those can’t bat, can’t bowl, can’t field moments. Even the 51 all out test wasn’t was bad as this one. And although the bits and pieces allrounder isn’t a new thing in England – Pringle played 30 tests for crying out loud – they don’t normally have more than one such player in the team.
Before the series Simon Heffer complained in the Torygraph that West Indies had almost given up on test matches. At the moment it looks more as though England have.
“This side has a history of bouncing back”.
Since 2014 and the start of the ‘new era’, England have not won or drawn any away series after going behind.
The sort of insight the ST are paying for…
I never managed to watch one ball bowled in this test match but surely. looking at the big picture; how wonderful it will be for world cricket if the West Indies ‘are back’. So much more important than England’s failure!
Unfortunately the Windies don’t get to play England every week :-)
😀 They need more support from the ICC. Their potential as a great side has never been lost. It needs to happen. Jenny
I agree with everything you say. For the rest of this tour I would go in with the best specialist bowlers, ie Anderson, Broad, Woakes and Leach, plus Stokes as the all-rounder. Unfortunately the batting options are terribly constrained given the squad selection. The only specialist batsman in the squad who wasn’t playing in Barbados is Denly. I’d be sorely tempted to give him a go as an opener instead of Jennings. As for the Ashes, hard decisions are needed if any of the top 5 don’t perform in the next 2 tests.
What we’ve seen here is the complete exposure of the nonsensical Ed Smith bits & pieces selection policy. It worked against India (by a combination of English pitches and lower order fortune), and Sri Lanka were utterly dire. It cannot be assumed that Australia will just roll over, with Smith and Warner back in the ranks.
I agree with everything you say except the categorisation of one player. Woakes is as much an all rounder as Stokes. He is a better bowler and not much inferior with the bat. His numbers are nearly as good as Stokes with both bat and ball and that is despite being yo-yo’d in and out of the side, always the first to be dropped when one of the anointed wants to come back. His treatment by England and the selectors has been a disgrace over the years and reminds me of the treatment dished out to Roger Twose – who emigrated and became the no2 batsman in the world at ODI.
I agree with that too, but interestingly Woakes would be worth his place as a bowler alone, even if his batting was at the standard of Monty Panesar.
Ah Monty. The only man whose batting reminded me of watching Lance Gibbs at Edgbaston in my young days. The confusion on his face at being asked to hold a bat rather than a ball was a joy to behold.
Was Monty a worse batsman than Phil Tufnell? I must say it’s difficult to think of any England number elevens who rate below those two.
How about Denly at 3 with Bairstow at 5?
Who’s dropped then? Buttler. while retaining Jennings? Or of course Foakes, giving the gloves back to Bairstow? I don’t like either of those options much, though they are both possible.
Burns (sadly he plays at wide balls so unless that changes his time is limited but deserves a run)
Denly (not an opener but the only option out there now so ask him to just bat time )
Bairstow.. tell him to stop trying to make it the middle overs if an ODI or he’s dropped
Root
Buttler (Fell him to to bat long and forget about SR.. if he doesn’t avg 40+ by the end of the ashes he’s toast
Foakes (stick him at six)
Stokes (4th seamer and all rounder. Batting is shown to be inconsistent and an avg of 32 shows it)
Woakes (in on bowling alone.. batting irrelevant)
Broad
Anderson
Leech
All my bowlers in as they are the best we have at bowling, couldn’t care less about their batting as i expect my top 7 to score the runs and if they can’t, then drop them
Curran is fighting for the stokes spot and is third in line behind stokes, Woakes
Ali is now second spinner when needed
I’d be tempted to fly bell or hildrith over short term and drop Bairstow from 3
Hell, tbh,, I’d go a far now to fly hammeed out and just ask him to bat long and forget runs
Seems a bit strange when the main problem is a shortage or specialist batsmen to drop an opener and replace with someone who doesn’t open! If Denley is to play, I would go with:
Burns, Jennings, Denley, Root, Bairstow, Stokes, Foakes, Woakes, Leach, Broad, Anderson
At least that is something like a normal batting order.
Joe Root’s average has dipped below 50 for the first time since August 2014.
Well apart from West Indies out-selecting out-batting out-bowling and out-fielding us that went well I thought.
I tend to agree that the reason for England selecting so many bits and pieces players is the lack of quality specialist batsmen. And we know that won’t change in a hurry.
I think we can hope this is the start of a West Indies revival rather than the more likely English disaster. Let’s see what the next test (on probably a completely different wicket) holds.
The rather disconcerting thing about this debacle was the philosophical attitude taken by captain and coach, who seem to be treating it as the sort of kick up the backside we need to go onwards and upwards. They both acknowledged it’s ineptitude, but were reluctant to dwell on the historical aspect of capitulation, which has dogged England’s test side for decades. It happens too often to be dismissed like this.
Certainly one of the contributory factors is the lack of proper preparation nowadays on overseas tours, where there is minimal first class cricket before the away team is pitched into cash cow international matches. Conditions in the Windies are radically different, so maybe we should be looking at itineraries. At least in Sri Lanka we played the one dayers beforehand so we had a chance to acclimatise for the tests. I am not trying to justify our sorry performance, which I believe was born of complacency, whatever Root says, but at least touring teams coming over here gets some practice against the counties.
Cook was saying the same thing in The Times this morning. Much better preparation needed.
England apparently turned down the west Indies’ offer of a “proper” 4 day game before the test. Same thing will happen in New Zealand at the end of the year (with, quite probably, the same result).
Well they’ve all had a nice bit of practice now so we should see a great performance in the next match, shouldn’t we???
As I clearly said preparation was just one of the contributory factors!!!. However, I am sure we will see a better performance in Antigua. Whatever you may think about the makeup of this present England side I believe there is enough pride in performance to be genuinely hurt by this debacle and most of our batsmen have made runs before against the present Windies attack.
The bowling is obvious – Broad and Leach must play, at the expense of Rashid, and (given his contributions in this match), Ali,
The batting is much more difficult, because of the resources on the tour. Jennings is now unselectable, as Denly apparently was in Sri Lanka. Woakes could only get in instead of one of the “batsmen”. Could he open?
No. Woakes comes in for Curran. Woakes is as good a bat and far, far superior as a bowler. You cannot have a front line seamer bowling at an average of 124 kph (78mph) as Curran did according to Sky.
I should have qualified my last sentence in the previous post with ‘unless his name is Vernon Philander’. But Curran is no Philander.
I too would be tempted to give Denly a go at opening for next test. How many chances does Jennings get? Ideally a right/left partnership would be nice also. Assuming the pitch is the same I would go with:
Burns
Denly
Bairstow
Root
Buttler
Foakes
Stokes
Woakes
Leach
Broad
Anderson
Its a shame that we didn’t take a couple more batting options Clarke/Pope and also that we lost our fastest bowling option to injury (Stone). I wonder how quickly they will be tempted to get Archer in once he qualifies after this series…?
At some stage you have to start questioning Roots captaincy too. Its clearly affected his batting, he is ‘protecting’ himself at 4 and not really performing there with the pressure he and the team are putting on him. What kind of mentality is allowing 70 odd all out and then getting spanked for 600+ by very average batsmen…? And then his team selections:
I like the idea of Curran with his variety and batting ability but until he gets a bit stronger he cannot be a shoe in for every team/conditions. He has a future but as a 4th seam bowler not opening at 20 years old and 77mph in non familiar conditions! What has happened to Mo’s batting and Rashid is also just not good enough for tests.
If Root is not afraid to make bold selections, lets see if he can be the bad guy and drop a few for next game???
I’ve seen a few comments about Root’s batting being affected by the strains of captaining an underperforming side. I’d say look in the opposition’s dressing room. Holder’s had a far more difficult time captaining his side but is batting and bowling rather well.
Holder is an excellent leader, and a top player, as this article suggests. http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/25868465/jason-holder-pace-attack-centre-west-indies-mini-revival.
He’s got the pace attack working (he, Roach and Gabriel have all taken 40+ wickets at under 25 since October 2016, which has more or less halved their previous average, and is no 2 in that period behind South Africa), and he can bat too. If you take average difference (batting av less bowling av) as a marker, he’s (a long way) behind only Imran and Sobers as an all rounder captain.
I suspect Root was chosen as captain because his face fitted, not because he was the best captain.
Bits ‘n’ pieces works great in limited-overs cricket. But in Tests, you’re completely screwed unless you’re a true all-rounder (i.e. you can bat and bowl, and at least one of those skills is as good as a specialist).
This is true. Neither of the 2 greatest test dynasties I watched (West Indies late 70’s to 1990; Australia 1992-2005) ever had an all rounder in their ranks. 6 batsmen, keeper (who could bat), 4 bowlers. The very fine South African team of the early 2000’s did have an all rounder (Jacques Kallis), but he was basically a top batsman (13000 runs at an average over 55) who was also a useful 4th seamer (nearly 300 test wickets at 32.65), so (I think) a true all rounder (as you put it).
What no one is interested in is fixing the.p now many many years problem at both pro to amateur level that have meant we aren’t producing red ball style players (both bat and ball).
Until people admit this and are willing to change things will continue to get worse
Could Clarke be an improvement on what we’ve got? Could Pope? Leach, Bess? We ain’t gonna know until England stop guaranteeing places to their old favourites. Hoping Leach is in next time. The one thing he lacks is experience. If Pope were picked at no 5 and scored the odd 30, we’d be no worse off but there’s a good chance he could grow his game and start making big scores.
The problem with Pope at no5 is nothing to do with Pope – rather it is the ‘playing favourites’ games of the selectors. To fit Pope in at no5, Stokes will need to drop to 6 (an excellent idea regardless of Pope) which means Buttler must either be dropped or pushed up to no3 to replace Bairstow. Neither is likely to happen as Bairstow looks more solid than most against pace and Mr Ed has pronounced (out of his rear end as usual) that Buttler is the second coming and undroppable. My real fear is that Mr Ed will dictate that, to fit in a new player, Foakes will be dropped with Buttler back down to 7 and the gloves with any one of Bairstow, Buttler or Burns. It is a bit worrying that the best keeper of those three cannot even get the gloves for his county (Burns).
Clarke and pope.. you mean more middle order merchants.. sigh
Yes. I keep hearing about Pope getting a nosebleed if he’s put in any higher than 6. Just like most of the rest of the squad.
Let’s make some changes. There’s all this talk about having a good squad with competition for places. Let’s actually introduce some competition rather than leaving m unchanged for the whole series.
Broad and Leach in for Rashid and Ali. We need to be able to take twenty wickets to win a test match. But don’t stop there. Woakes will take more wickets than Curran and not weaken the batting, so there’s another change (obviously Curran would stay in if we were looking at a green swinger at an overcast Headingley).
And I’d also bring in Denly for Buttler and move Bairstow down to number 5. Denley won’t get as many runs as Buttler and Jennings will struggle but Bairstow will score more at 5 than he does at 3. It’s about picking a balanced side. And at least Jennings has been hanging around long enough to get the shine off the new ball.
Obviously still more work to do in finding consistent top three batsmen, but this is the best we can do with the squad available.
Totally agree-see my comment above!
Agree 100%
When picking the team, you need to start off by picking
-the 5 best batsmen regardless of whether they can bowl
-the 3 best bowlers reagrdless of whether they can bat
You then pick a 4th specialist bowler. If the first three are rabbits they will need to be able to bat. You then have a bit of flexibility with the other two places. Looking at the current team
Jennings – not good enough for one of the 5 bats
Burns – need a run
Root – bat
Buttler – I don’t think he is good enough for one of the top 5 bats so he should be keeper or out
Bairstow – probably good enough (just)
Foakes – good enough but depends on balance of team
Anderson – bowler
Rashid – not good enough, you can’t use a specialist bowler to just bowl at the tail
Ali – not good enough as a bowler, contention for the spare spot
Curran – not good enough as a bowler, contention for the spare spot
Stokes – can play as a bowler
So that leaves
1. Burns
2. Bat needed
3. Bat needed
4. Root
5. Bairstow
6. Stokes
7. Foakes or Bat needed
8. Ali or Curran
9. Bowler needed
10. Bowler needed
11. Anderson
So, we need a minimum of 2 new specialist batsmen and a 3rd if we don’t play Foakes. Need to pick one of Ali and Curran. And need 2 new bowlers.
Don’t understand that. Why ignore Broad, Woakes and Leach?
Why the hell is moeen or Curran in the side ?!?! Leech, broad and Woakes in
Moeen, Curran and Rashid out
Curran really is over rated Jesus
Some here suggest that Joe Clarke should have been selected. But as he was ‘stood down’ from the Lions, presumably the same would have happened if he was in the WI?
Yep no Clarke for the foreseeable future one would think. He was allegedly part of the same WhatsApp group as the player charged with rape. Ditto the promising Tom Kohler Cadmore. Ashley Giles wanted to make an example of them as he felt that belonging so such a group (in which they egged each other on to sleep with as many women as possible) was unbefitting for an aspiring international cricketer http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/25737548/joe-clarke-tom-kohler-cadmore-stood-lions-tour-whatsapp-sex-revelations .
I won’t cry for Clarke though. He’s super talented but I disliked the way he walked out on Worcs ostensibly to have a better chance of playing for England. Had he scored more runs last year, and kept Worcs up, then he wouldn’t have needed to move. Indeed, had he scored more runs for the Lions then he wouldn’t have needed to move either. Plus he’s been a Lions regular for a while so it’s pretty obvious he was already on England’s radar. Seemed like an opportunistic move for me. He was off the very first time his contract was up (after establishing himself in the team that is, as he did sign an extension as a kid).
I understand the thinking, and do not think Clarke or Kohler Cadmore merit selection but………I do think it is difficult for the ECB to take a moral stance against something which is poor judgement but no more when they have shown themselves so prepared to accommodate Stokes despite video evidence of the most appalling behaviour. Just because someone is found not guilty of a criminal offence does not make their behaviour acceptable and if Stokes is acceptable then so must be Clarke and Kohler Cadmore.
Andy. I refused to comment on the decision to stand down Clarke & TKC on Twitter. Even refusing to comment got me in trouble. I’d like to have my say on this but I’m not touching it with a 20 ft pole! :-)
It is a shame in one way. If they were selected England could have them coached by Shagger Thorpe – their batting that is. Which rather illustrates the issue. :)
Love Thorpe. Give his book a read. Brilliant autobiography. He’s been through a lot.
Given that Moeen is a regular in the England team, Clarke’s “reasons” feel more like excuses for getting more money. Sorry.
Better solution: Rashid or Ali, put in Broad.
Done.
Well, yes, if the Antigua pitch is anything like Barbados. I fear Smith will spend too much time correcting the last error, and make a new one in the process.
For many years Denly regularly opened the batting for Kent with Rob Key, so it’s not as if he is completely inexperienced as an opener. Anyway he can’t do any worse than Jennings. He might also be the English equivalent of Royston Chase with his leg spin! If he’s not going to play at some time why pick him in the squad, can’t just be for drinks carrying.
Agreed Mike. Denly should play instead of Jennings. And because he bowls some legspin it makes it easier to replace Rashid without the team losing much.
I said exactly this on Twitter this morning in response to The Cricket Badger . We’ve all fallen for Ed Smith’s doesn’t matter where players bat as long as we have the best 11 but in fact I feel players need to know what their position is and what their role is . Is it to bat well or take wickets? Stop picking players who do a little of both and pick specialists . Who cares if Jack Leach can score runs it’s what he does with the ball in hand that counts ! This philosophy needs to return !
Absolutely. Ed Smith’s strategy is crazy. It completely contradicts everything everyone’s learned about test cricket over the years. Normally anyone spouting such bollocks would be ridiculed by the media. But because it’s Ed, and he’s so eloquent and intelligent, everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt and portrays him as some sort of visionary. It’s exasperating. He’s made some good calls, and he’s an interesting guy to listen to, but his mistakes (ahem, Keaton Jennings, ahem, is another) are completely ignored. It’s like he’s charmed everyone and cast some sort of spell. Emperors new clothes etc.
Had Ted Dexter said his plan was to pack the team with all-rounders (the extension of which is leaving out a bloke with 400+ test wickets) he would’ve been laughed out of town. But Ed explains it all so intelligently that he gets a pass.
I agree that Smith’s strategy is crazy but after winning in Sri Lanka, England may have to loose quite a few games before people realise that the Emperor is stark naked.
At the end of the game the Sky commentators were talking what changes could be made to the English side. Denley was mentioned as a possible opener and some-one (I think it was Atherton) immediately said the added bonus was he can bowl leg spin. Fuck me, I am sick of these bullshit. The only thing I care about is, is he good enough to open the batting?
Well I don’t have much to add that’s not been said above, or many times before. Most cricket watchers know what is required, but the ECB don’t because they are ex financiers, shop keepers and marketing ” specialists” not interested in the game at all, but just making money. Some of our players are in around £1m a year for Pete’s sake. I’d demand thier salaries back after this shambolic humiliation. I don’t think the cupboard in county cricket is completely bare of players who could graft it out rather than have a fixed t20 mentality like this bunch of losers. Hildreth averaged 42 in Div 1 last year, what about Bell? Den ley and to be frank even Vince will get you a stylish 40! Clarke another bits and pieces player, Curran is one for the future, both of them and Woakes. is better than Stokes.
The Aussie pace attack will rip through us in the Ashes without changes made.
The best thing about Mr Ed being the National Selector is that we are spared listening to him going on about some hare brained theory on TMS. Agree about bringing Broad, Leech and Denly in for the next Test. I would love Hameed to be the answer to finding a decent opener but he can barely score a run for Lancs in the CC and makes Jennings look like a superstar. My partial solution is to find a specialist no 3 for the Ashes-; Pope bats at no 3 for Surrey next Summer and hopefully by weight of runs, he gets picked by England.
“They are not inconsistent in as much as they had won eight of their last nine Tests” (quote is from Nasser Hussain but it could be almost any of the press stooges).
They’ve also won 8 of their last 17 but apparently those matches have been flushed down the memory hole. It wasn’t just that those preceeding matches weren’t won but most of them were lost and by huge margins.
I think this theory that England are inconsistent is very dubious. Home (on pitches designed to help swing): good side. Away: unless the opposition is completely hopeless (Sri Lanka), completely undone by pace or spin. Were we inconsistent in Australia on the last tour? No (rubbish, yes, inconsistent, no). Were we inconsistent in India? Same as Australia. If you look at our away results over the last 2 English winters (not including the current winter), they read: P14, W1; D3, L10. The win was against Bangladesh in a drawn series (yes I know Bangladesh have improved at home, but …). Frankly, that’s not inconsistent, it’s all too consistent.
I too have been disappointed but not surprised by the media. They’ve closed ranks yet again and are covering things up and will laud England as having a great fight back etc when they win the next test.
England are a one day side with Anderson, nothing more, nothing less. The fact they all avg 30’s but can play a classic one day knock to win a game pretty much sums all th games you can remember up. SL are really bad and that’s why his side won, nit because it’s a good side
Still, the PR spin is what we’ve come to expect so just await the inevitable plaudits come Monday
A look at the WI schedule reveals why all the talk about a WI revival is whistling in the wind.
Rest of 2019 – WI play 4 Tests (India [2], Afghanistan, Zimbabwe)
2020 – WI play 5 Tests (England [3], SA [2])
England play 17 Tests in the same period and Australia 13 (excluding current SL series).
There is of course absolutely nothing accidental or untypical about this,
Looking for fresh buyers? Get hundreds of keyword targeted visitors directly to your site. Boost revenues super fast. Start seeing results in as little as 48 hours. For more info email us here: paul5854sau@gmail.com