Getting thrashed in the Ashes is never easy. It’s humiliating. It’s embarrassing. And it’s about as much fun as watching Mickey Mouse Clubhouse with a hangover. However, when it happened in the 1990s and early 2000s we had an excuse (of sorts). We were playing against one of the best teams ever – a side boasting all time greats like Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, and Steve Waugh. There’s no shame in losing to a team like that.
The current Australian team, on the other hand, is good but far from the finished article. They have a talented bowling attack, which was always likely to be a handful in their own backyard, but they’re currently ranked 5th in the world test rankings. England, meanwhile, are 3rd.
As a result, I can’t agree that England have simply lost to a better team and therefore all the gnashing of teeth is misplaced. Australia might well have the edge over us at home, but are they really ten wickets, 120 runs, and an innings and 41 runs better than us? Honourable defeat in a competitive series would have been acceptable. Losing the first three tests by massive margins and surrendering the Ashes before Christmas is not.
So where does the blame lie? This email I received from reader Tom Williams typifies the angst many feel:
If there has to be a postmortem, a fallout, then attention has to be turned towards the selectors and the senior management rather than the players …
I still cannot understand the Vince at three decision. A batsman who continually gets out playing rash shots outside off-stump, shots that should be leaves. This should not be a surprise. Vince had an extended run in the team. He played seven tests, failed to reach a fifty and had a test average of 19. He managed an average of 32 in the County Championship in 2017 from 12 games. These are not figures that warranted a recall. Keaton Jennings, despite having a dismal summer for England, averaged higher than Vince in tests before the start of the Ashes and had a test century in India to his name. Gary Ballance averaged 67 for Yorkshire in the summer and has heaps of international experience.
Mark Wood could make his comeback in Melbourne. This should happen. He is with the Lions. He has played in an Ashes series before and he has the ability to get the ball zipping about at 90mph. However, reports indicate that Tom Curran – another right arm medium-fast seamer – will play instead. I don’t understand the thinking.
Moeen Ali is also a huge concern. He’s bowled like a man carrying an injury and has been one of our most expensive bowlers. The England management must have had concerns and must have seen him bowling in the nets before the tests. Perhaps, in the end, he’s played because England’s back up spinner is Mason Crane. A talented but uncapped twenty year old who averaged 44 with the ball in the 2017 season.
These are not digs at Mason Crane, at James Vince, or Moeen Ali. The fault lies in the decisions of the England selectors. This was a curious squad whose fragility has been proven by a ruthless Australia. If they are to have any chance of avoiding a whitewash then the pack has to be reshuffled.
It’s pretty hard to argue with any of this. By picking seamers who are all very similar, a main spinner who wasn’t fully fit (and has never bowled well abroad), plus selecting flawed batsmen who have failed before, England really shot themselves in the foot. However, on the other hand, it’s undeniable that England would’ve been a lot more competitive had the senior players performed – no matter who the supporting cast around them was.
With the exception of James Anderson and Jonny Bairstow, who have done reasonably well, the other senior players – I’m talking mainly about Root, Cook and Broad here – have been massive disappointments. It’s hard to talk about any of them as world class operators when they’ve failed so miserably in the biggest series in the English cricketing calendar. Indeed, there’s an argument that England should now move on from Cook and Broad.
Joe Root’s performance has been a bit of a mystery. Whilst I wasn’t sure whether his game was particularly suited to Australian conditions – I expected him to get into trouble on the backfoot outside off-stump occasionally – I’m surprised that he’s yet to make a single match altering score. His captaincy has also been poor at times. I thought Ricky Ponting’s comments yesterday were very interesting. Although it’s a bit below the belt to depict Joe as a ‘little boy’, I do think there are question marks about his leadership.
The problem, of course, is that Root hasn’t had the opportunity to hone his captaincy skills before assuming the most pressurised job in English cricket – a flaw inherent in the English system. What’s more, there are few alternatives to Root as captain. Indeed, one could argue that Alastair Cook only continued in the job for so long because there really weren’t any compelling alternatives.
As for Cook and Broad I think their legacies are now somewhat tarnished – especially Alastair’s. I’ve long argued that Cook is a tad overrated, and not quite good enough technically to withstand bowling of the highest quality, and I think this series (plus his numerous efforts against South Africa) have proven this to be the case. I still think he’s a good test opener – you don’t play 150 test matches and score big runs against international opponents unless you’re an accomplished player – but he’s clearly not the boy wonder so many have wanted us to believe.
In the case of Stuart Broad, once again I think he’s been exposed as a good but not world class performer. I’d probably rank him alongside guys like Peter Siddle, Andre Nel, Tim Southee, and Kemar Roach rather than top draw performers like Jason Gillespie, Craig McDermott, or even Andrew Flintoff. Both Broad and Cook have accomplished so much due to their longevity (and lack of competition for their places) rather than possessing any transcendent talent.
What this series has shown, therefore, is that England’s senior players simply aren’t as good as many thought. But if this is the case, what more could the ECB, the management, and the selectors have done to prevent this defeat? Surely we’ve come full circle but, in the process, demonstrated that England simply did lose to a better team? After all, Australia’s best players have lived up to the hype but England’s haven’t.
At this point one has to look beyond this series and see things in their broadest context. And this is where (surprise, surprise) it all comes back to the ECB. After all, if many of us suspected that Cook and Broad would struggle – Cook’s productivity in particular has been on the decline for a while – then it’s reasonable to ask why they were playing in the first place?
The answer to this question, of course, is that the selectors had no alternative. There were no prodigious young opening batsmen or prolific young pacemen ready to take their places – even though this tour specifically required batsmen who can play high class quick bowling (which Cook can’t) and bowlers who can bowl fast (which Broad can’t).
Think of it this way. Imagine if Peter Siddle was English. How many test wickets would he have taken if he’d played in over one hundred tests? Broad has taken 393 in 112 tests. Siddle took 211 wickets in 62 tests; therefore I think it’s fair to argue that if Siddle was English he’d still be in the team, have approximately 400 test wickets, and probably be described by all and sundry as a modern English great. But would his longevity reflect his ‘greatness’ or just the fact we had nobody any good to replace him?
Australia, of course, don’t have these succession problems with their bowlers. They were able to leave out Siddle a while ago (even though he’s never let anyone down) and bring in the likes of Pat Cummins, which has enhanced their cutting edge spectacularly. England, on the other hand, have had to make do with the same old warhorses irrespective of whether they’re past their best.
This Ashes defeat, therefore, is indisputably the ECB’s fault. The production line of young talent coming into the England side is probably the board’s single biggest responsibility. Yet for multiple factors – most importantly the number of people playing cricket and watching it on TV – they have failed.
What’s more, the ECB haven’t even made the most of the talent available. Fast bowling and quality spin are the clear difference between the two teams. Yet within the space of 24 hours, we’ve had Dawid Malan complaining that the English system ruins our young fast bowlers, and Mason Crane bemoaning how the scheduling of championship games in April and September (thus leaving the best months of the summer for white ball cricket) has hurt the development of English spinners.
None of this is rocket science. Anyone who follows English cricket closely can see it. And any idiot with a PC can start a blog and write about it. So why haven’t the ECB done anything about it? And why do they keep taking steps that will further erode the first class game and hurt our test team even further?
One has to assume that the ECB simply doesn’t care about winning the Ashes away from home. In fact, they probably don’t particularly care about England winning away full stop. Their strategy, it seems, is to cash in on the popularity of T20 whilst winning enough home tests to keep the crowds coming in and the social media dissidents at bay.
James Morgan
Cook and Broad are both in the twilight of their careers. They have have played through peaks and troughs, while at the same time turning out for England through thick and thin, wide and far. It is fair to debate their futures and to give an analysis of how they are now vulnerable. However, I would prefer a more balanced overview, taking their contribution into account in a small way, when pointing out their current and not so current, failings.
Joe Root has been badly let down by some of his senior players, Cook and Broad in particular.
As for Vince, by way of statistics and past experience he seemed to be a highly dubious selection. It does appear that he will always get out in a similar fashion, but he made an effort and played brilliantly at times. With hindsight, given his innings at the Waka, it’s not difficult to see why the selectors were prepared to prevail with him, in the hope that he could be trained to knuckle down.
*WACA!
Ironic part of the Peter Siddle comparison is that he played very well for the Adelaide Strikers the other night and, if he keeps performing as he did, may well play the back end of T20 tournament at the end of the English tour of Australia despite never being considered much of a short-form player for Australia because of the Test tour to South Africa.
I think that comparing the test rankings of England and Australia is rather misleading as Australia would be much higher (and England lower) if restricted only to tests in Australia or similar conditions. So, we have been beaten by a better side (for the prevailing conditions). However, there has also been a monumental, and long term, failure by the ECB.
I think the comments about Jennings and Ballance neatly illustrate the ECB failure. For several years England have promoted players based on white ball ability or who have clear technical flaws (or both). They then compound those errors by returning to the same players when the flaws remain unresolved. Those of Ballance are well documented. Jennings plays with bat away from pad (just like Duckett). It may work in ODI and T20, but tests require solid technique. Few batsmen are good enough to be equally good in white and red ball. Even Chris Gayle’s red ball record is no more than decent. Why have the ECB repeatedly made the same error (I could have mentioned Hales, Buttler, Borthwick, Patel, Rashid etc)? Partially because of incompetence and partially due to their policy of promoting T20 over all other forms means young batsmen with technique are becoming thin on the ground. But even when they exist they are not selected. I know Hameed had a tricky season, but technique is lasting whilst form is transient.
I fear England’s test future is bleak as, even if the ECB recognise the consequences of their policies it will take some years to bring through a new group of young batsmen who do not think the reverse sweep is a defensive shot.
Please read Tom Harrison’s thoughts on English cricket in Cricinfo.com
.Pollyanna is alive and well while he is a spokesperson for the ECB.
Beefy was on Inside Cricket the other night and gave glowing figures for rating the team. Alan Border was a realist and gave 3 or less for some.
It is time to be honest with the players and public.
What do you expect for £600,000 a year? Miracles?
Been having a look at the ECB’s accounts. In 16/17 turnover was £119m of which about £7m is the 10 centrally contracted players salaries, which I have few issues with.
So £111m of which less than £24m is returned to the counties.
Meanwhile about £20 million buys you 28 Umpires, ( no issues there) 59 development staff, 66 coaching staff, 28 administrators, 38 party planners, 25 ‘game support’ and 1 global event manager.
How many staff does the average county have full time? Anyone ever seen a development, game support or coach from the ECB at their local clubs? I never have.
Meanwhile as an non Geordie it’s difficult not to think that the ethos behind Durham CC, namely to give league cricketers in the North East a chance to play first class, was a complete success. Harmison, Stokes, Collingwood and now Stoneman are players that England have relied on. Many others knocking on the door. If you’re going to war you are ill equipped without a Geordie. But they’re massively in debt and have effectively sold off their star players for nought.
They’ll be back, league cricket is a lot stronger than many realise and I suspect salary isn’t the prime motivation for young bucks whose local county side are broke.
As too are Lancashire and Yorkshire, hence it wasn’t a great surprise to see the wicket for the last Ashes test at Old Trafford produced to ensure 5 days.
When non test counties like Somerset turn over about £5 million a year and we are paying gobshites £600,000 a year to sprechen ze bollocks it’s not difficult to see why the ECB have the counties by the short and curlies.
There will be no review into our Ashes calamity as it was expected. Now those gobshites are actually putting their skills to work. nothing to do with cricket their job is to blame anyone but themselves ( I suspect they would have preferred another drunken night or two or for Root to have lost a toss) and try to get us to forget about unimportant things like the Ashes.
To be fair the ECB isn’t entirely wrong, watch the BBL and you are watching the future. They’ve taken the atmosphere and even a lot of the lingo from baseball. It’s good stuff. The kids love it even if one of them gets twatted by a 5.5 ounce missile occasionally.
The county and recreational game is the goose that lays the golden egg. Whether that is a test shaped egg or a T20 franchise shaped one is irrelevant.
We as fans though have to start asking some tough questions about how the money is spent. Especially now that is has doubled. A franchise system that sees gate receipts go to the ECB is as clearly unacceptable as the England cricket team’s overseas results.
Or we can just accept whatever waffling cockmunchery that self interested millionaires think passes for an excuse
I have never been convinced it was necessary to give Durham FC status to enable local cricketers to come through (although I think it was justified for the record of Durham in minor counties). There are plenty of examples of cricketers who reached the top from remote bastions of cricket (some rather more remote than Durham). Off the top of my head, there was Jack Richards (Cornwall), Roger Twose (Devon), Liam Livingstone (Cumbria). And, of course, Tom Graveney was from Northumberland (but had moved before cricket). And FC counties now scout far and wide. Warwickshire spotted Sam Hain even before he played for Australia at age 16 in the U19 World Cup. And remember Ole Mortensen? Rather harder to get into FC cricket from Denmark I suspect.
So the ECB will fund the county boards and these boards employ staff. Usually modern day administrators sadly and a few ‘development officers’ who are basically team admins rather than anything useful. This when you added in costs, travel, clothing etc costs money.
Then of course you have the admin which goes with clubmark checking (even though it’s the most pointless thing ever)
All adds up to a lot of jobs for people who just collect irrelevant qualifications and are most likely not the type of people you want running the game
It really is simple James. We have lost to the better side.
Would you swap any of their bowlers for ours, yes of course .. all four of them.
We left our shores and we knew exactly what our problems were, and they’ve been made true.
The frustrating thing is we’ve had our opportunities, but we’ve failed to take them. Because we aren’t good enough, either mentally or through talent.
From what I’ve seen thus far in the BBL you could take Australia’s third string attack and still see similar results. There’s a 7 foot tall young buck whose slower ball is faster than Woakes best!
In which case it must be 10 mph faster than the likes of Curran and 5mph faster than Anderson and Broad. Your comparison would look more sensible if made against England bowlers who rely on pace such as Wood.
We get it dude.
You like Woakes.
Just as you appear to despise him and use even inappropriate context to criticise.
For the umpteenth time, he’s a fine player in the right conditions.
When does the Australian Sheffield Shield competition take place?
Don’t be fooled into thinking the Shield is great. it also is suffering lowering quality of players because the problem of white ball affecting skill levels negatively is happening world wide
I’m not, it was a point about scheduling. It’s scheduled similar to our county championship.
With one key difference. They only play 10 games.
I’m not sure how many more pages we can create stating the same issues
1) the ECB are destroying the game of Cricket
2) participation is dropping faster than the titanic.. no amount of massaging the figures with ‘we reached x kids’ or ‘more females are playing now’ will fix the issue
3) clubs are dying at an alarming rate, meaning less teams playing in leagues but more importantly as bigger clubs just suck up players, people will essentially play the same players at the same few grounds game in game out.. how Boring !
4) our system is geared to produce white ball cricketers both technically but more importantly.. mentally. This compromise sadly is just not compatible to high skill level test cricket amateur Cricket is being dumbed down just as badly and you can see the results.
There is no reward now for a player to be a red ball player and clubs will favour those more suited to crash and bang Cricket. Willey being a good example, never going to be good enough for red ball Cricket but good for white ball.. yet he will most likely make a darn good living while not actually being good enough !there are plenty of people out there who have the talent and skill to be pure red ball players but they simply don’t get picked at any level so you never or rarely see them.
Only the very top pro can excel at both red and white ball Cricket now, even then… you could argue that there are literally only one or two of these in th world ! Let alone within one nation
1) Agreed.
2) I disagree about the women’s game. I think it’s more important than many realise. Also are we counting midweek 20 over leagues in participation? If we do I suspect it might be up rather than down.
3) I played for a South Manchester side with fantastic facilities. Very much a large club. The convicts were amazed that we probably had 10 clubs within a few miles of us, some playing on postage stamps and in different leagues, rather than the large club putting out lots of teams.
The latter would mean a much stronger first team, club politics permitting, with people playing at a level suitable for their skill.
I also played for a tiny club in Merseyside who had one batsman. They were never in fear of promotion or relegation due to two rapid fast bowlers and a chap who bowled Chinamen googlies at pace. As a spinner myself I was gutted and concentrated on opening the batting instead. They were good, very good, but were never going to leave their very local club. As bowlers those three were better than the attack in the ECB league of the large club. A lot better.
Concentrating players into the larger clubs isn’t altogether a bad thing, though equally allowing smaller clubs to go to the wall is neglectful.
4) Yes, you need draw cricket and preferably over more than one day to bring the complexities of proper cricket to bear. This is dumbed down by reducing the number of overs in a match, specifying the number sof overs and therefore treating spinners and seamers as equals and with merely scoring runs faster potentially giving a win.
I agree with almost everything you say. I do have problems with the fewer, larger clubs scenario, due to a particular episode. In the 1980s my club picked up a 14 year old quick bowler from Guildford. He left Guildford because he was being marginalised in favour of Martin Bicknell, who was the same age – but slower. He played for us for a while before becoming a soccer pro – but was an even better cricketer. Had Guildford developed him, rather than playing club politics, there may have been another test cricketer to add to the lists. Players need a variety of clubs because even the best and biggest can be dominated by politics and non-cricketing issues.
Yeah there’s pitfalls and advantages to both.
Personally I’ve always preferred playing for small clubs, especially ones that aren’t very good.
Playing for a losing side is usually much more fun than a winning one, especially one that wins big. You always get a bat for a start and the joy of the comedy batting collapse is something unique to cricket.
As you say generally the larger the club the worse the politics.
Midweek 2020 in all the counties I’ve looked into and played in have less teams and less players per week playing.
My county used to have 6 weds divisions and then a county cup completion on a Tuesday with 10 teams.
Weds league is down to 3divs now of only 6 teams and the Tuesday cup I think this year only has 5 teams.. that’s replicated around a lot of places. I’ve no doubt some other areas haven’t seen this as not everywhere is the same.
Women’s cricket is important to build up but you shouldn’t use that to hide the fact men’s league cricket in particular is shrinking fast…
Less larger clubs in theory WILL concentrate players however as someone else has said, you will always get club politics and more win at all costs mentality which means you will put players off turning out (a lot of top teams have 2 paid all rounders which means at least one or two guys are turning up to field! They won’t stay in the game long doing that in modern society)
There are many things the ecb could do to raise participation and then work on quality but it seems like it really has no interest. Counties seem to have little interest in the amateur game either sadly.
Hey ho, it is what it is. Just wish I played in th 70/80/90/2000’s instead of now
“Counties seem to have little interest in the amateur game either sadly.”
Seems to be true but it has always puzzled me. Take a look at Jimmy’s figures in the Lancashire league before he became a county player. Quite a few overseas pros above him but also quite a few domestic. Maybe they were old or not really suited but you can see that the standard must have been very high as Jimmy was playing tests a little more than a year and a half later.
There seems to be a complete disconnect between the leagues and the counties. How many young bats get 1000 runs a year without ever getting a first class game?
If there is much in the way of scouting going on ( the lass making the teas rather apologetically rang Lancashire after seeing Jimmy bowl in the nets) then it’s only the top leagues. I reckon you could average 5 with the ball in the lower leagues without ever seeing a scout and some of the trash that you face from age group / second XI types makes you wonder how they’re picking them.
The league standards now are awful. I can’t speak for Yorkshire but I’ve played in the top Birmingham prem, played a few of the top lancs teams and around a few more counties and it really isn’t good. Then you come up against some of the bang average county boys and they don’t stand out overly.
This isn’t because the leagues are good, it’s because your average county player isn’t very good now.
Gone, long gone are the days where scouting the leagues is viable. Hell, it’s embarrassing a lot of the crap that you see in the junior or 2xi sides!! Half of them aren’t even the best kids or adults !
You have to have everything 100% when you go to Australia. The players woes have been well debated now, but I would add that we took and played players who were either not fully fit or out of form. i.e. Broad, Moen, Woakes, Cook,Wood ( who is never fit) and probably Anderson whom I am sure is carrying some niggles. That makes it difficult against any opposition, but in Aussie it doomed the tour before it even started. At least know as you all point out there is an opportunity to reshuffle the pack to at least try to avoid a 5-0 drubbing. But I doubt that they’ll do it.
When you add to this the Stokes business, other off field antics, lousy PR, a white ball coach who doesn’t watch County Cricket, years of crap management and wrong focus from our supposed governing body the ECB, no cricket since 2005 on terrestrial TV etc, no wonder all the Turkey’s have come home to roost for Christmas.
Haven’t we exhausted this topic now. Don’t see anything new in any of the posts. Same tired old ground. Spleen can be one of the most boring things on the face of the earth. Let’s just get behind the lads out there are leave the analysis of blame till after the tour, when we can try and make sure those in authority understand how frustrated we all are.
If you are going to highlight Vince’s runs (or lack of) as a major contributing factor to the loss of the Ashes, then you really should mention Stoneman as well – or do his 12 more runs excuse him from blame?
Yes I am a Hampshire supporter and no I wouldn’t have picked him for the tour. We all know your absolute disdain for Vince but try not to pin the failure of the tour on his shoulders, there are many far more culpable than him.
I really think this is the wrong tour to blame the selectors. The four new guys have generally performed well (or at least compare favourably to their more experienced peers). In fact I’d go as far as to say as it’s a little churlish not to recognise some decent picks (especially in view of the lack of obvious options). Not a popular view for sure but a thumbs up from me.
I don’t deny that there are legitimate complaints around the ECB and structural issues too but I think the likes of Tom speak a lot of sense re experienced guys standing up and being counted. This is where the series has been lost. Whilst the results have ended up quite one-sided, at times they have swung on quite fine margins. If the senior guys had even partly performed the tour wouldn’t be over at this stage.
Still pride to play for from here – you can guarantee Australia won’t let up and a strong finish to the tour can still salvage something.
It’s true. The players who were 50/50 selections or judgement calls have probably pulled their weight ie. Malan, Overton. The failures have come from the players who were automatic selections.
“We have to be careful not to overreact half way through an Ashes series. We can all understand there’s some frustration and we haven’t been able to close those matches out. Now is not the moment to be overreacting. There will be no review. This is not the moment for knee-jerk reactions or rash decisions about what we do from here in respect of performance.”
Can’t find anywhere that Harrison says the experienced players haven’t stood up.
Only some delusional waffle about the game being in a good place.
We need a spinner in Australia, though not of the verbal sort who sucks money out of the game.
Pretty clear that the ECB management are hardly even bothered, never mind crushed, by the results in the ‘competition’ that means the most to the fans. Then again they’re pocketing £50,000 a month for this shambles so why would they be bothered?
Is rewarding abject failure off the pitch a good idea in any sport?
James,
This “Blame the ECB” stuff is all well and good and there’s plenty of truth in it.
But I have one question.
At what point are we going to accept/admit the fact that responsibility for performance should rest primarily with the players? Not coaches. Not administrators. Not whoever is “scapegoat of the week”.
We’re not talking about a failure of players that we had doubts about – and that we could legitimately blame the failures of the talent development process for.
We’re talking about the failure of the experienced core of our team. The guys who have produced in the past. Root. Cook. Broad. Moeen. Woakes. And I’ll throw Stokes in there just for being such a colossal cockwomble.
The heart of our team have not shown up. That’s on no one else but them.
Oh, really? It’s time to start holding the players responsible instead of reflexively blaming the ECB?
Wow. Fancy that.
How can you blame the ECB for Stokes?
I don’t.
Root, Cook and Broad yes, they’ve been disappointing verging on abject for the latter at the Waca.
You’d expect all three to have made some big contributions by now.
Did anyone really think Moeen Ali with the ball or Chris Woakes with either bat or ball were going to make an impact in Australia? I certainly didn’t.
If Broad were striking at 46 as he did in 2013 it might not have mattered as much, though when your 2, 3 and 4 bowlers go missing presumed crap you are highly unlikely to win anything. Still unlikely with 3 and 4 contributing little.
I don’t really feel let down by Woakes and Ali. I feel let down by the ECB turning a blind eye to history thinking they might have an impact. Stokes may well have committed some cockwomblery but I don’t feel let down by it, it’s just a convenient excuse.
If I know you need wrist spin, pace or a particularly clever medium in Australia then how can the ECB not? What’s the point in wrapping Woakes in cotton wool with a central contract, fine player that he is, when the focus should be on the Ashes and the genuine quicks needed there? Eight central test contracts and not a single out and out quick?
Is that the players fault?
Would I have been disappointed if we’d merely picked whoever was the quickest we had, regardless of skill or age, unleashed the swarms of coaches on them, bowled them just enough overs to keep them fresh and released them at the Gabba?
Hell no! That’s what I expect central contracts to do!
Is it the players fault we don’t have anyone to mash their bowlers to a pulp with the short stuff? We were really thinking that an Aussie tail would think our attacks pace anything but friendly? Does any Shield side not have someone 90+??
It’s not about how you “feel”. It’s about experienced players not performing. And yes, that includes Ali, alongside Cook, Root and Broad.
The point is that when the established players aren’t performing, or go through a bad patch, there’s nobody to replace them. That’s because the strength in depth in English cricket, and the lack of fast bowlers / spinners, simply isn’t good enough. And that’s on the ECB.
I don’t blame Moeen for not performing. And I don’t blame Cook for performing. They haven’t performed because they’re not good enough (or not good enough anymore) in these conditions and against this attack. And if the players aren’t good enough, and there aren’t any decent replacements available, then whose fault is that?
As I said in the article, if Siddle was English he’d still be in the team irrespective of whether he’s the bowler of old. Why? Because there would be nobody else.
When Handscomb was struggling the Aussies were able to bring in M Marsh, who scored a hundred. England can’t change their team because they don’t have the strength in depth.
The only senior player that hasn’t performed, that I expected to perform, was Root. And he must indeed take a lot of criticism.
The reality is Cook, Root and Broad were all automatic selections. They were going to be picked come what may, so it’s a redundant criticism to talk about a lack of replacements. They had to be picked. That’s less true for Ali but I’d still characterise him as a walk-up start, particularly in Stokes’ absence. Their selections were a fait accompli and their poor performances are not the ECB’s fault.
Handscomb is not an instructive comparison as he was not as established as those English players. And, frankly, bringing in Mitch Marsh left plenty of people scratching their heads. It’s not like he’d been banging down the door with sheer weight of runs.
We can’t have it both ways, both highlighting the extreme differences in the bowling attacks and castigating our best batsman for getting out to theirs.
Cook has probably only faced about 200 balls thus far in the series. Other than KP he’s probably one of the best players we’ve ever produced against the short ball. Or spinners for that matter. And he’s only 32, which frankly isn’t that old to have an England debut.
Let someone else take the shine off the ball and he can still be a colossus. It isn’t as though the convicts have worked him out, he seems to be spreading his dismissals around quite nicely! If your team is struggling then protecting your best bat from the new ball is surely a no brainer? Not that we’ve bothered to take a spare opening bat…
Vince was a strange selection and has surprised no-one. Curiously averaging less in Test matches than he does in the county championship, what a shock. He’s got time on his side but isn’t a number 3 and isn’t yet test class. Those lovely cover drives would be an asset with a 50 over old ball, or with runs already on the board.
Nit picking over selections or form though doesn’t hide that the ECB just don’t give a sod about red ball cricket. Why are we expecting our batsmen to master a good pace attack when only a handful of English batsmen can average over 40 in division 1? It’s difficult to recall a bigger contrast between Sangakkara and the rest since Lara was dominating.
It’s “nitpicking” to point out that senior players have gone missing? Ok then.
Don’t feed the Troll
Don’t “nitpick” by pointing out that England’s senior players haven’t performed.
What an absurd dodge this is.
Trooooooll
I’m not convinced that if Stokes had played the result would have been much different. However, despite his not fantastic Test stats he is one of those guys who can make things happen when needed at times. Also he is the only player I can think of who would be in the side for either batting or bowling. Add his exceptionally fielding and effectively we loose 2 and 1/2 players. Hard to replace.
Avg mid 30’s with the bat and huh 30’s with th ball.. yeah sure.. he’s test class with bat and ball!!
Clueless
With the ball he is a fourth seamer who bowls tripe with the odd glory ball.
With th bat he is capable of a top class innings but then he is more likely to fail a load of times (hence the avg !!)
Why o why is stokes bulled up as some world class batter and bowler .. sure, as an all rounder he’s decent (no Kallis for example but decent ). He is better with the bat than say Freddie but far far worse with the ball than Freddie was.. he is a number 7/8.. no more, no less
People really have to stop bull crapping about stokes, the guy Just isn’t that good
Agreed – although it is fair to say he is our best fielder. But in an era where all pro’s are good fielders (well – nearly all) this is of marginal benefit, although welcome.
Oh I agree he would be England’s best fielder by a long way. However, this tag stokes is given about getting in the on batting, bowling alone is utter tosh. He is however our best all rounder.
CricketCricket Cricket.
Do you watch the game? Comments don’t suggest it
Literally every ball England bowl or bat against. The difference is I’m not a sheep fella
Your comments remind me more of someone who watches ‘highlights’ and then reads media pieces to bakc themsleves up
I hope you sat up last night like me and watched all the balls?? Or will you be going off highlights and a loss of rubbish media stories ??
I agree with those on here who say that enough is enough. We can point fingers at everyone and everything for ever.
Before the tour had even started I felt depressed and pretty much uninterested, overwhelmed by the deluge of verbiage from those in charge of or reporting on the game. In days of yore I loved reading reports in the Yorkshire Post from J M Kilburn and even anxiously awaiting the thoughts of the incredibly pompous E W Swanton, who thought he ran the game.
It may be that we should look at ourselves for letting the twerps like Harrison and Graves get away with it; for bowing down before the almighty Sky and letting them dictate what we should or should not watch.
If we allow red ball cricket to lose its supremacy then I think I may well bugger off and content
myself with reading old Wisdens.
Bit harsh on Broad, James, he’s 15th in the all time list of Test wicket takers. Certainly some of that is just as a result of the number of Tests England play, but also it’s because he maintained a good enough standard for long enough to play in so many of them. Siddle got sawn off at 200-odd because he became as ineffectual as Broad is now a lot more quickly.
Maybe Stokes ” isn’t that good” but I’d rather see him in the side than Cook, Woakes, Broad, Moen and Vince any day of the week.
Ben Stokes Test match stats may not be that great, but as Doug says, he is one of the players who can make things happen. He would not have let the Aussies intimidate him and might have given them a taste of their own medicine with the odd nasty bouncer. Somewhere along the line he would have made runs too, and his brilliant fielding has been missed. Not enough to change the result of the series, but he would have shown more fight and his absence has changed the balance of the team.
Australia have simply outplayed England, it pains me to say it. Their three pacemen and Lyon have been the difference, more so even than Smith’s batting. Cook, Root, Moeen, Broad and Woakes have all underperformed. I just hope we can show a bit of fight in the last two matches and salvage some pride.
Happy Birthday to Alastair Cook on Christmas Day…please start scoring some runs Alastair ! Daddy hundreds please.
No pride in winning dead rubbers. Aussies won’t be trying anywhere near as hard. All it’ll do is be a PR boost and we shall see people like above talking up the players again
Stokes is no longer capable of a really nasty bouncer. I am not sure why, but his speed seems to have dropped 3-4 mph in the last few years. When he first came through I thought he would be a genuine short spell shock bowler – but not now.
Curran in for Overton and Bird for Starc.
Teams are unchanged otherwise.
Root said that Crane or Wood was considered but that Curran helps the balance of the side…. I wish the lad well but his captain is an idiot. Useful lower order runs it is then.
What do you mean… Alec Stewart raves about Curran so he must be what? A rapid 81mph.. lol
Dear oh dear we are in a mess.. our only hope is Australia simply can’t be bothered to play properly
From what little I can see on youtube and from the pyjama cricket he looks good. But, he’s a swing bowler.
Did get one ball down at 87mph. Most considerably less than that.
Yeah maybe the convicts have prepared a wicket specially for Jimmy and co to shine on. In front of 100,000 at the G. Last time they did that went well didn’t it? Can’t remember what we shot them out for but it wasn’t many, nor were the attendance figures after it.
You could have played 5, 6, 7 or 8 right arm swing bowlers in any of the previous tests and it wouldn’t have changed the result.
But Root thinks the team needs balance.
I’m not confident.
98ao in 2010/11 Boxing Day rest
We know most bowlers can bowl faster but it’s your operating pace that counts not the random odd ball.
Saldy white ball Cricket is zero indications of test success
Yip.
He does seem to be a bit quicker than the average bear now, judging purely from watching a few of his wickets on youtube. Compared to Oz quicks though? Nope. Nada. Niet.
To be fair I don’t have any issue with him playing. Or indeed if Root had articulated a good reason. It would take Frank Tyson to get me to step over an average wrist spinner at the MCG.
To bring balance to the side though? WTF? Makes no sense whatsoever. The side is about as balanced as my nob, has Root seen our useful late order runs getting….
Not sure I’m really looking forward to this even.
Were you watching ?? Few touched 85 but mainly 82.
Accurate as most trundlers are but offers nothing.. literally nothing
The only convict is Stokes
Not been charged so alledged.
Personally I don’t think anyone who acts like that should play professional representative sport because like it or not.. you’re a highly paid pro who is an idol so you have to act like it. If you can’t control yourself then you don’t deserve the chance. Sod off and play IPL, Indians are welcome to him
Another ashes… another 0-5 loss… and the cycle continues
Ali might be carrying another injury…
There might be hope for Crane yet… Is it technically a Christmas present if it happens after midnight?
He bowled woefully. Easily out bowled by Malan – who wasn’t really that threatening either to be honest.
Wicket is not quite the road it first promised to be, but certainly not bad to bat on. Smith will be aiming for 500+ total and to have England batting in the last session tomorrow.
“He” being Moeen Ali
Ashes boffins crack the secret to success in Australia!
Sensational new research from Loughborough Univeristy has finally revealed why England struggle on Australian wickets.
The research, based upon detailed data from Cricket Australia, challenges old thinking about bowling and batting in Australian conditions.
“It’s all about pace mate”, says Prof. Ken ‘digger’ Oathcarn of his ECB funded research. “You drongos have tried to bowl too fast in the past, the data from hundreds of thousands of seam up dismissals shows that they all fell when bowled at 83mph”.
The shock findings are set to change the way England prepare for their upcoming Ashes battle down under.
“That’s a bogan ball mate.” says Ken Oathcarn of genuine pace bowling, “You can leave them or play your shots and you’ll be fine. It’s the 83mph ball that’s bonza. You Poms..er.. I mean we need to train our bats to defend anything they think is 83mph and attack the faster balls”.
“You can’t argue with science cobber, every single seam up wicket. It’s official data.”
The crucial research was almost lost to cricketing science until Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney’s Universities all stepped in with grants to ensure it’s completion. It raises questions about England’s past selection policy and which Ashes attack was the best in Australian conditions.
“Straya dodge a bullet after 1989”, says Oathcarn. “Pringle, Newport, Defreitas and Foster would have been deadly down under. Four right arm medium pacers and no spinner, that’s the attack we wanted to see!”
So no Tyson, Statham, Appleyard and Wardle? Did Lillee and Thompson take their wickets at 83mph?
“errr… yeah mate. When they weren’t bowling silly fast balls they took plenty.”.
The research has been warmly welcomed by Andrew Strauss, director of English cricket. “This is very exciting for us. For over 50 years we’ve been taking bowlers who we think can contribute useful lower order runs to Australia without success. Now though we have the key and I fully expect our all rounders to finally unlock the Australian grip.”
But what of spin bowling, surely they don’t take wickets at 83mph?
“It’s different for spinners.” say Digger, “They need to bowl at 53mph without any variation or they’ll be ineffective”
“We analysed the greats like our Shane and found that all this nonsense about gogglies, grips, toppies, flippers, turn, drift, field placings and psychology were myths according to the Cricket Australia data”.
“The great man only took wickets when he bowled 53mph, outside off stump”.
Apparently field placings down matter either. “You’re as well having someone completely random as Captain, just tell em all to spread out a bit rather than setting a field. Or have the bowlers set the field so their mates are within chatting distance. 83mph is the key”.
Tom Harrison was also excited. “I always knew my 83mph straight up and down medium pace would have won the Ashes for us. The research also show my batting would have been ideal, you don’t need to average over 15 to be considered a batsman if you play it right and can contribute useful lower order runs. Andrew and I will be instructing all coaches over the next 2 years to make sure that no-one exceeds the 83mph speed limit in preparation for a victorious Ashes campaign next winter. ”
He added, “We hear that Australia have ordered bowling machines set to 83mph and 53mph to practice against as not a single one of their bowlers are that slow. It clearly shows that they have a problem with that pace.”
Brilliant!
I’ve seen this movie before. Smith double ton and then Australia by an innings
The match is clearly in the balance.
English fans apparently need to be reminded that you don’t get extra points for conceding prematurely.
Aussie batsmen look clueless to the pitched up ball even when it’s not moving.. and yet, England don’t bowl there.. how many times has warner nicked off a full of a length ball.. most
Khawaja…
Bancroft (who looks awful and the fact he was tonk for glos means it’s not Just form!)
Pitch the f’ing ball up you clowns
Yet again, the game appears balanced and a Aussie gift of a collapse could let England in but in reality, assuming they don’t do anything stupid it’s looking like a bore draw or a England collapse under pressure and loss.
This team is woeful and we need to pray for an Aussie collapse. If Mitch marsh can score 180you have problems.. Warner could have been out s lot today and yet the commentators praised him as ‘picked off the bad balls’… wtf … no, he played a modern day one day style innings and just came off.. could easily have been caught loads .. ffs stop bull crapping it up and just call a spade a spade.
You called it… Though rather than a collapse I’d say they were unlucky with three drag ons.
I’ll take it though. Not sure three hundred and odd is a good score.