Well that was entertaining! Yesterday’s ODI had pretty much everything: tension, frustration, hope and ultimately triumph. It was a brilliant way to finish the series and has really lifted morale ahead of the Ashes.
Jonny Bairstow was an absolute star. He watched his teammates commit hari kari – we batted like brainless imbeciles in the initial part of the chase – and composed pretty much the perfect one-day innings thereafter: he got himself in, rotated the strike, and then accelerated at exactly the right time. It was a very mature knock.
Of course, many of us didn’t think Bairstow should be playing. James Taylor was the more deserving candidate as he batted well at number six in the World Cup. However, the management’s faith in the ginger bomber was rewarded. They obviously thought Bairstow was the man in form and they proved us all wrong. Kudos to them. How refreshing to have a head coach that makes the right calls now and again.
New Zealand will blame themselves for not winning the game – Ronchi and Southee both dropped sitters that let Bairstow off the hook – but it’s true what they say, catches really do win matches. It’s as true in international matches as it is in school cricket. England dropped chances in their previous defeats. Now it was New Zealand’s turn to spurn guilt edged opportunities.
The result was a 3-2 series victory for England. We’ve won ODI series at home before, and they’ve proved to be false dawns, but this time I sense a turning point. There is a lot to like about this new team. It’s zestful and entertaining to watch. Beating the World Cup finalists in a five matches series is a fine achievement. Let’s hope the team can go from strength to strength.
However, it’s important that England learn the right lessons from yesterday’s game. The result was actually a repudiation of England’s shot-a-ball approach not a triumph of it.
The ultra attacking strategy actually got us into a hole that almost cost us the game. Morgan got out first ball trying to hit a six – the most irresponsible shot imaginable from the captain of a team who were 20-2 – and then Stokes was out trying to hit his third consecutive boundary. The smart thing to do after you’ve hit two fours, and the run rate is well in hand, is to take a single. Stokes had a rush of blood to the head and put his side in trouble.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. A shot-a-ball approach is just as formulaic, and almost as daft, as a ultra conservative approach. We all want an England side to play generally positive and entertaining cricket, but most of all we want them to be flexible and intelligent – to read the game, and know when to attack, and when to sit in. All the best players do this: think Sangakarra or Tendulkar.
Yesterday New Zealand read the conditions better than England. Kane Williamson in particular assessed conditions, judged what a competitive total would be, and played accordingly. England’s top order, on the other hand, didn’t realise that Durham isn’t the Oval. Their shot selection was poor and they batting like lemmings.
To say ‘well, that’s the way this team plays and sometimes it won’t come off’ isn’t good enough. It gives the players an excuse not to think. We’ve all complained about England’s past reliance on data and the inability of our players to think on their feet, and yesterday’s batting indicated that we’re still not thinking clearly and independently – the only difference is that we’ve swapped one predetermined blueprint for another.
It took Jonny Barstow, a relative outsider, to show the other batsmen how to do it. Realising that his team were in trouble (and that sustaining a rate of ten an over wasn’t viable in the situation) he kept England in the game by rotating the strike, and picked his moments to play big shots. Most of all, he didn’t panic.
The team won’t always be able to play buccaneering cricket in English conditions. We need modern players with the full repertoire of shots, of course, but they must know when to use them. Otherwise, England will squander the home advantage they’ll enjoy in 2019.
By the time the World Cup comes around, Morgan’s team must know how to play at England’s different grounds, on different pitches and in fluctuating weather, better than their rivals.
This criticism is just a mere caveat however. We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the turnaround in England’s ODI fortunes has been remarkable. It’s so much better to be a young, vibrant, entertaining but somewhat naive side than the tepid, robotic rabble that represented us in Australia.
The rejuvenated Eoin Morgan, and the coach Paul Farbrace, must take an enormous amount of credit for this. Those who have reservations about Trevor Bayliss’s nationality (for there’s no disputing he’s an excellent coach) might wonder whether Farbrace could do the job on his own. He’s made a decent fist of it thus far.
Andrew Strauss must take some credit too. It was his decision to stick with Morgan when many wanted to see the back of him. He’s still a quality limited overs batsman who can be destructive on his day. It was really heartening to see him back to his best. In the scheme of things, we can forgive him yesterday’s golden duck.
Well played Eoin. You and your team have given us a big fillip before the Ashes. Now let’s see if the test team can lift it’s game too.
James Morgan
@DoctorCopy
In other news, Graeme Swann says New Zealand are the world’s best Test team:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3131885/Graeme-Swann-England-batsmen-tame-Australian-attacker-Nathan-Lyon.html
What a clown.
Agreed.
Clown implies fun.
Swann is more like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqwDoMqyWxw
If we use something called, say, the Botham Scale to measure the gap between one’s adoration of performance on a cricket field and one’s utter contempt for the same player’s punditry, well, Swann has single-handedly transformed it from an arithmetic into a logarithmic measurement.
It’s fine to throw a few barbs at the opposition pre-Ashes but Swann seems stunningly forgetful about what happened last time around – both to England and to him specifically.
Australia might not be as ‘intimidating’ (whatever that means) as they were 15 years ago but they were still good enough to beat England 5-0 and send Swann hurtling into retirement mid-series.
His ‘banter’ seems a little less convincing when you consider that context.
Surprised he didn’t rate WI as number two test nation.
Personally I think the Aussie pace attack is more than intimidating. Harris, Johnson, Starc & Hazlewood has a bit of everything … and a hell of a lot of pace. Starc hadn’t nailed international cricket until recently. Now he’s the fastest and probably most feared bowler in the world. Our tail will get blown away and our top order will have a bit of a wake up call. They’ll have to play out of their skins.
I just think this whole ‘intimidation’ line is over-cooked and smacks of false bravado. Were England intimidated before the last series? Probably not and that ended with a 5-0 hiding and Swann crying off home halfway through. So maybe intimidation isn’t as important as having world-class players making runs or taking wickets.
If Swann wants to talk smack about Australia, it would make far more sense to go after Clarke and question whether he’s still up to it or whether Watson should even be playing or whether Johnson has the temperament to perform in England. Look at the way Warne always hammered Cook’s captaincy, knowing that the jibes with a kernel of truth are the most likely to stick. Questioning Smith, after the amount of runs he’s scored in the past 18 months, is pretty easily dismissed as desperate, attention-seeking banter. The results speak for themselves so it’s a poorly chosen target by Swann.
While Swann’s sledge is off the mark – good sledges play on lingering doubt in the opponent, I do think he’s right in that the series could be a close one. I think England did the right thing resting Anderson and Broad. Way too often they have been bowled to death then lost their sting. If they are on song then that’s a pretty dangerous pace attack also. Anderson does average 37 against Australia, but he’s likely to do better than that in future!
If you look back to 2013 a series that was much closer than 3-0 suggests, you have to say that
1) Batting
– Australia has slightly improved (Smith++, Haddin-, rest=)
– England look about the same.
2) Pace Bowling
– Australia has clearly improved – Starc and Hazlewood + Johnson (even if he’s not at his 13/14 best) are better than 2013 Patterson/Starc and Siddle.
– England about the same.
3) Spin Bowling
– Australia slightly improved – Lyon has clearly improved and we aren’t experimenting with Agar.
– England declined, no question Moeen Ali is not Graeme Swann.
Still England have I think more potential for surprise in a few newer players. A strong third Seamer, Lyth doing well as opener etc. Will Harris maintain his dominance over Cook ?
Given this I think it will be close although a big win in the first test for Australia could set the tone for a one sided series more likely it will be 3-1 or 2-1 to Aus, but an England win is certainly a possibility also.
“Ronchi and Southee both dropped sitters that let Bairstow off the hook”.
Santner dropped the second one – not Southee.
Elsewhere, Pakistan have just pulled off a remarkable win against SL in Galle. It’s Pakistan’s first win in SL since 2006, their first away win against a top eight team since 2011 and their 123rd Test win which makes them the most successful Asian side in cricket history (India have 122 despite having played nearly 100 more Tests). I know it’s hard to look beyond the Ashes but England play Pakistan in 7 Tests and 10 ODIs in the next 15 months.
Good point re: Pakistan. Was it really not Southee? I’m sure I saw a SO not a SA on his shirt. Apologies if I’m wrong.
An excellent post James. An easy and uplifting read with your points well made and delivered. I agree with every word you have written.
Apparently Paul Farbrace did not want to be considered for the top job. More of a team man it is said. I’m sorry about that. I do hope that the team will find it easy to gel with an Australian coach.
Trevor Bayliss might be just the man we need to consolidate the new approach and take it forward into test cricket but the Australian way is not always our way. Let’s hope all misgivings are unfounded and it works out very well for all.
Cheers Jenny. Didn’t realise Bayliss prefers being a deputy.
Very perceptive James.
“I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. A shot-a-ball approach is just as formulaic, and almost as daft, as a ultra conservative approach. We all want an England side to play generally positive and entertaining cricket, but most of all we want them to be flexible and intelligent – to read the game, and know when to attack, and when to sit in”
Sounds like a description of James Taylor to me from watching what he does for Notts
Still, that series was fun. Hopefully, England will sit down, assess what happened and fix the shortcomings
Great series with two fine attacking teams.
Think its harsh to say we play shot a ball cricket. We have been fantastic this series. If a batter feels the ball deserves to be hit to the boundary then hit it. 4 scores of over 300, chasing down 350 losing just 3 wickets. What a vast improvement on all the previous efforts over the last 12 months.
However, Ive still got broad bowling bouncers at NZ’s tail at headingley in my head so am fearful for the ashes. Anderson broad cook may be good team men but can they create this happy atmosphere morgan has set up. We shall see……….
Happy atmosphere? Cook? No chance.
Happy atmosphere? Bayliss? That could happen, but not with Cook as captain.
It’s going to be very interesting to see if those two can see eye-to-eye. I strongly suspect not…
By all accounts the team are very happy under Cook. I can’t see why he wouldn’t get on with Bayliss. He seems to be very well liked by the people who know him. That generally cuts both ways.
Is that part of the problem though? Sometimes for managers its a bad sign if everyone likes them, they haven’t made any tough decisions. If you are letting bowlers set fields for bad bowling you might be good mates with the bowler afterwards but you aren’t doing your job properly.
Steve, you make an extremely valid point. Liking someone is not a good enough reason to keep them in a position they are not suitable for. That is a lose, lose situation at this level.
Part of the formula for a happy team is knowing that your captain is not only a nice bloke, but is a serious tactician, and that he’s not going to let you down at critical moments. You want to know that his captaincy is going to win you games. Otherwise frustration and tension sets in.
Can anyone make that claim for Cook?
Day 4 at Headingley this year, was the same as Day 4 at Headingley last year!!
Of course Bairstow should have been selected he’s been in top form this summer. In fact if it wasn’t a worry to ECB that he might be a better keeper than Jos he would have played loads in the past 3 years. He also knows which way Rashid will turn it. Ps neither catch were easy.
I would add that England had the better conditions in which to bat – C-l-S is one of those places, like Headingley, where it is great to bat when the sun is out and hell to bat when it is clouded over. I thought the NZ did very well to get those runs – no one was finding it easy to bat fluently, and that includes 2 batsmen in great form in Williamson and Taylor. After all the rain, the skies cleared and you could see blue in the sky; England almost threw it away. I think the end result shows that the D-L adjusted score was just about spot on.
I agree entirely.
You’ve called it right on “attacking” cricket being just as formulaic as “attritional” cricket.
I hope England finally learn to do something they’ve never done before: look at a series they won and take the negatives from it. Yes, they won – but what did they get wrong along the way?
Victory is wonderful, but it’s just a bonus at this stage. This side is still new and developing, and if they want to get to no. 1 in the world, they need to learn every single lesson the game teaches them, irrespective of victory or defeat. We only have to look at India’s humiliation at the hands of Bangladesh today to know that arrogance and complacency are the shortest road to catastrophe. (Or most of English cricket for the last 10 years, for that matter…)
I have to disagree.
What Morgan has been doing is encouraging his team to play their natural attacking game; formulaic is the wrong description. Over time they will develop a little more nous (particularly when they lose close fought matches like this one). For now, it’s probably sensible not to,send them back into their shells.
Couple of other observations… NZ have dropped quite a few catches this series, too, and I’m sure both teams will be looking at their catching.
Finally, Rashid had a most impressive game again. Relatively parsimonious; took wickets; and I loved the way he dug out that yorker near the end.
(nitpick: in the context, it’s gilt, not ‘guilt’ – unless that was intentional ?)
Yes, I agree, Nigel, the Morgan version of England doesn’t do formulaic. They may misjudge situations, but at least they’re making the judgements as players and not just following the coach/computer’s instructions.
It’s also obvious that they talk to each other, so Bairstow wouldn’t have been left on his own as a kind of forlorn hope.
Formulaic means they play to a precise formula every time without really considering conditions and context. I can’t recall a time in the series that we didn’t adopt an all out attack approach and sit in the game / rotate the strike for a while. It didn’t matter what the match situation was or what conditions were. Don’t get me wrong, I like this new positivity, I’m just saying they need to learn to play in different styles and be flexible otherwise they’ll get caught out now and again. Bairstow got it spot on in the 5th game, but the others didn’t. All out attack isn’t always wise. Nothing wrong with playing yourself in first.
Cheers for all your comments. Good to have a bit of debate :-)
Interesting!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11690966/England-team-was-divided-and-riddled-with-cliques-claims-Craig-Kieswetter.html
Thanks Mr Ironballs. I’ve just tweeted this link. An absolute must read.