England Need A Reset. But This Isn’t The End For ‘Branderson’.

I was personally very upset when England dropped / rested Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad for the Test series in the Windies. It was tempting to write a diatribe there and then! However, rather howling into the wind for the umpteenth time this year, I’ve decided to publish this instead. It’s Mark Cohen’s brave defence of Andrew Strauss’s decision. Do you think Mark has a point?

The decision to omit Stuart Broad and James Anderson from the three upcoming Test matches in the West Indies may have sparked popular outrage, but there is some method behind the alleged madness of Joe Root and stand-in Director of Cricket Andrew Strauss.

An individual player’s character looms larger in cricket than any other team sport. But ageing greats can also be the roadblock to progress. Broad and Anderson’s self-belief and drive, which once propelled England to the summit of Test cricket, is now threatening to chain it in the past.

England’s next opponents are evidence enough of this quandary. Fast-bowling titans Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose propped up the sagging West Indies teams of the late 90s. Their subsequent retirements within a year of each other pulled the rug out from under a team that had not prepared for the future. Broad and Anderson’s omnipresence threatens to do the same if unchecked.

Unlike the Windies of the late 90s, there are some willing successors in Mark Wood, Ollie Robinson and in due course, Jofra Archer. The unpopular truth is that England’s two greatest fast bowling servants are just that – servants – and not kingmakers or dictators. Their success over the years may deserve selection, which surely will come around again soon enough in the English summer, but it does not demand it and cannot come at the expense of the team’s longevity.

Whilst the current form of England’s all time wicket-takers might demand selection, it is an unfortunate reality that the modern day athlete’s age is too often the stick with which they are beaten; such is the way with the highly tuned operations of professional sports teams.

Unstable calves have proven to be their Achilles heel in recent years. Anderson’s withdrawal during the first day of the 2019 Ashes with a right calf strain was evened up with Broad sitting out most of last summer with a tear in his left.

Their strength and durability is nothing short of remarkable, given the physical rigours placed on the modern day fast bowler, but the dilemma whether to stick or twist on selection extends well beyond the physiotherapist’s report.

Stepping back for a moment, the impact this decision will have had on both players and their relationships within the England team cannot be discarded lightly.

Having been dropped for the first ‘bubble’ Test (also against the West Indies) in July 2020 Broad spoke candidly about how it was hard to understand why he had been stood down from ‘his’ shirt. His column in Sunday’s Daily Mail merely reached back 18 months to pull the same feelings to the fore once again. Anderson has kept his counsel so far, but surely shares the same disillusionment.

The forthcoming test series in the Caribbean is one that England should, and can, win. But Strauss and Root have clearly chosen it as an experimental venture. As hard as it might be to stomach, Broad and Anderson should also take this view, as the yet to be confirmed new coach will likely recall them immediately. It benefits that unknown figure to also see what alternatives are out there behind the two fast-bowling gatekeepers of English test cricket.

Broad and Anderson should also not be singled out as the Ashes scapegoats. Six other players from that touring party have also been axed, including the solidly performing Dawid Malan and the thought to be previously immune Jos Buttler.

What supersedes the Broad and Anderson debate is a problem that was summed up by the latter during the fourth Ashes test in Sydney: it doesn’t matter what bowlers you play, if you get bowled out for 140. At a time when low expectations are mixed with backroom staff fluctuation, a dollop of experimentation is needed in the batting department before launching into another congested English summer.

The English rebuild is only just beginning and it is hard to see Broad and Anderson not being involved with the process as early as the summer series against New Zealand. This is not the end for them, therefore, but perhaps remaining on the other side of the Atlantic is part of the reset that this England side so desperately requires.

Mark Cohen

16 comments

  • I had some sympathy for Broad until he went crying to the media. I seem to remember someone being cast into eternal damnation for doing that.

    It looks like a move to save Root’s captaincy. He can’t manage them so they have to sit out a tour which England have only won twice in 54 years (haven’t double-checked that stat but think it’s right). It also smacks of trying to get one more summer out of them because home tests are all the ECB really care about in the red-ball game (especially as Archer is already ruled out of them – oh, but he may be fit for the 16.66).

    It’s amazing England managed to drop 8 players – yet Ashes’ disasters Pope and Woakes are still in the squad.

  • Very thought provoking discussion. One has to feel for both Anderson and Broad and I agree that we must look to the future. However Broad, in particular, has had a tough time with respect to selection. I’m not sure what the dynamics are like in the dressing room and whether the Anderson Broad axis has been a negative influence? My feeling is the main negative influence on this team has been an abject batting performance and if Root fails again at number 3 we will surely be in the do-do!

  • I don’t think Root wanted to bat 3. He’s always resisted this in the past for extremely good reasons. He’s much more effective at 4.

    The strange thing re: Broad is that Anderson has taken a ridiculous number of wickets an average of about 22 since turning 35 years old. Broad could therefore, in theory, be equally prolific and England would be unwise to alienate him. He’s done little wrong anyway.

    England’s approach is bizarre imho. If there are two things that weren’t actually broken in the England Test team over the last year or so it’s (a) Root’s form at 4, and (b) the performance of the veteran seamers. Changing these things, which were the only successful constants, could be a recipe for disaster. There’s no way that inexperienced prospects like Mahmood are anywhere near as accomplished at this stage.

    As always with the ECB – and I do blame Strauss rather than Root or Collingwood for the selection – I suspect that cricket reasons were very low on the priority list when this decision was made. In my opinion it’s all about giving the appearance of change, which is what most punters demanded after the Ashes. And of course, if it stops people talking about how Tom Harrison was the only prominent employee to keep his job after the Ashes (at least until he’s collected his bonus) then that’s a very welcome bonus. Ahem.

    Did someone mention dead cats?

  • I sort of agree here. England is at rock bottom and surely can’t get any worse? However good Broad and Anderson are, you have to make space to find out who, sooner rather than later, is going to replace them. One not really sure what Anderson is trying to prove by going on and on anyway? But as is said here, it’s the batting that’s the main problem. If we can’t score 300 even Larwood, Warne, Ambrose et all won’t get you out of trouble.
    Wood is 32, Robinson isn’t fit enough and with the best will in the world I don’t see Archer being the bowler he was, or even bowling in tests. Is Mahmood good enough? Maybe but all our quicks seem to be walking injuries. Not looking good really.

  • I do find the insistence that Anderson and Broad must be treated as a combination strange. They have been an incredible partnership, but that does not mean one cannot play without the other. Yes they are both ageing, but Broad is 4 years younger than Anderson, so I don’t get why they must be omitted as a pair?

  • It shouldn’t be necessary to ask the question of an England Test tour but let me ask it anyway. What is the objective of this tour ? The answer should surely be « to win the series » but if that is the case this selection is bizarre. The basis for picking a side is form and reputation. We picked what, presumably, was thought to be our strongest squad for the Australia tour. Since then, effectively, we have played no red ball cricket other than in Australia. On the basis of that tour, the first names on the list for the WI are surely Root at 4, Anderson, Broad and ‘Not Buttler’ as wicketkeeper. (Foakes is the only England player to emerge from that tour with his reputation enhanced). Everything else is up for grabs. Instead, we have ignored the evidence of our own eyes in Australia and ditched our successes.

    Does Andrew Strauss have a garden, I wonder. If he does, does he spend the summer uprooting his flowers (no pun intended) and watering his weeds? Because that’s what he’s done here.

    I’m afraid Strauss, an intelligent man, looks on course to be yet another top class cricketer who, when he turns his attention to cricket administration emerges from it much diminished. (Actually, when I tried to think of those who hadn’t I only managed Illingworth and Geoff Miller).

    • Winning a series surely has to be balanced with succession planning. This isn’t how I would have done it, not least because it’s involves prioritising one player who’s been terrible abroad for years and is almost 33 and another whose attitude to fitness seems somewhat dubious–but the logic seems fairly clear.

      And it’s what Strauss said–a combination of seeing who might replace Broad and Anderson and of trying to improve the performances abroad. (In the last eight years, both Broad and Anderson’s strike rate in Australia is 78, for example, which isn’t going to win England many Ashes series. Among all the outrage, it’s rather been overlooked that Broad doesn’t have a particularly good record in WI either).

      Of course if England get bowled out for 160 every game it doesn’t really matter who’s bowling, but that’s no reason not to try and look at what options there are.

      • I understand the logic behind succession planning – on which basis Anderson would have been dropped 5 years ago – but England selection is invariably focused on what might happen in the future rather than playing the match in front of them. If we are focused on winning the next Test – which I believe we should be – we would start by picking Root at 4 and Anderson and Broad. Strauss’s comments simply say to me that we are floundering yet again.

      • DO you understand the logic behind succession planning? Asking because succession planning by definition involves some element of focusing on what might happen in the future rather than purely the match in front of you.

        If you’re focused purely on winning the next match, then you don’t do any succession planning until a crisis actually hits you, and then you deal with it at that point.

        I also don’t see why Anderson would have been dropped five years ago for succession planning reasons. At that point he was 34, all of England’s other bowlers were under 31 and most of them were 28 or under.

  • I like the relevance of Mark’s comparison with WI after Ambrose and Walsh, and the lesson learned that you have to do some succession planning.

    Then again, I share Doug’s despair at the list of alternatives. I have some hopes for the further emergence of Sam Curran – his injury might have been a blessing as it shielded him from the ashes debacle. The only way Mahmood can gain experience is by playing. When is Stone due back? (Ten wickets at under 20 in three tests).

    I think if I had been the interim selection panel (hmm) I’d have saved Anderson for the summer but sent Broad to stiffen things up a bit.

    • The Ambrose-Walsh comparison was interesting, but for me Mark got it a little wrong: I don’t think the issue was that WI didn’t have a plan for replacing them (surely the plan was King, McLean and Rose?), but that the replacements weren’t anywhere near as good. So I think it’s even more relevant than you suggest!

      The irony with Mahmood (and Fisher) is that if the thinking Strauss was giving is correct, they probably won’t play. It sounds like the first-choice line-up is Woakes, Robinson and Wood, presumably with Overton as first reserve.

      Stone? At the moment, due back sometime in the first half of the season, but then he has only played around 25 f-c matches in six seasons, so we probably shouldn’t be holding our breath! (He’s also been talking about retiring from tests to prolong his career….) You could maybe see who’ll give you odds on which of Stone and Archer will come back first…:-)

  • We have to learn to live without Anderson and Broad sooner or later, but it’s still a big deal to leave them both out – especially with Archer and Stone still injured, Stokes bowling less and less, and Woakes still totally ineffective away from home. Puts an awfully big weight onto the shoulders of Robinson (though he must know he needs to improve his fitness) and Wood (who is rarely far away from his next injury). As you say, it does strike you as being seen to take action after the Ashes debacle. But the selectors’ reaction to batting failures has always been to drop bowlers!

  • Thanks to SA for giving a vivid demonstration of how rotten the whole edifice of current test cricket is. This is against a NZ without their two best players and making Matt Henry look like Richard Hadlee reincarnate.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting