You’ve read the comments. Now vent your spleen.
I’m sad to report that Jonny Barstow seems to have lost the plot. He thinks people want England to fail just to they can stick the knife in. And now he’s started a row with Michael Vaughan.
This really isn’t a good look. And it’s a distraction that England really don’t need. Our upcoming opponents, India and New Zealand, will interpret Jonny’s words as a sign that we’re feeling the pressure.
I’m not sure what’s up with Bairstow. He seems to have a persecution complex as I’ve always considered him to be an extremely popular cricketer. He sees enemies (or rather critics) where there are none. It was the same when he talked about his own form last year. It’s a shame as I really like the guy.
Jonny’s words aren’t just unwise because they’re going to put him and the team under even more pressure; they’re also unwise because they’re completely incorrect. I was at Lord’s on Tuesday and the home crowd were right behind their team. We cheered every shot … except the craps ones they got out to.
In general I’ve always found England fans to be extremely supportive – just look at the response Alastair Cook received in that test match at the Rose Bowl a few years back when his captaincy was under fire and he couldn’t buy a run. The mood in the country at large was fairly discontented, but the supporters at the ground gave him an excellent ovation.
Rarely have I heard home crowds in England boo their own players – an occurrence I’ve heard frequently down under. I once experienced a group of drunken Aussies abusing Glenn McGrath and calling him ‘useless’ and ‘a bottler’. That’s Glenn McGrath, one of the best bowlers of all time. They’d have eaten the likes of Jonny for breakfast.
The other thing that was weird about Bairstow’s comments is that he didn’t seem to know how many games England have lost. He kept saying the team had lost ‘two’ games or ‘a couple’ of games. Hmmm.
I could be wrong, but it you add up a defeat to Pakistan, a defeat to Sri Lanka, and a defeat to Australia, that amounts to three defeats. Am I right? Let’s hope Jonny’s shot selection in the next game is better than his Maths or his memory.
All will be forgiven, of course, if Bairstow and Co dispatch India on Sunday. And boy do we need a win. Because Bangladesh and Pakistan (our rivals for 4th place) play each other in the final round of group matches, one of these teams will definitely finish on at least 9 points. That means England need to win one of their two remaining games. We might even need to win both.
Beating India and New Zealand is going to be tough. However, one senses that the India game is the biggie. Fortunately the game is being played at Edgbaston, which has been a stronghold for England in recent years. Unfortunately, however, there will probably be more India supporters than England fans at the ground. It could be a surreal atmosphere which somewhat negates our home advantage.
What’s more, if the pitch is dry – and nobody needs reminding how hot it’s going to be in Birmingham over the next 48 hours – then it might suit Kohli’s team. Yuzvendra Chahal has been absolutely fantastic thus far in the World Cup. He’s going to be a real danger.
How do you see things going at Edgbaston? And do you think England will qualify in the end? Fortunately neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh are particularly strong; consequently I still fancy us to squeeze through.
However, if things go from bad to worse, and we fail to qualify for the semi finals of our own World Cup – despite the limitations of the other teams – then there will be a whole can of media whoop-ass thrown in the team’s direction.
Whisper it quietly (outside Jonny’s earshot) but they’ll deserve all the flak too.
James Morgan
Bairstow also apparently said that the bowlers were “unlucky” against Australia. No. Bowled too short for the conditions. The worst one though was the batting against Sri Lanka. Indecisive and reminiscent of England pre 2015. I think the team’s confidence is shot after discovering the ICC won’t produce roads and they don’t know how to adapt.
Vaughan’s response:
How wrong can @jbairstow21 be .. Never has England team had so much support but it’s you and your team that has disappointed Jonny .. WIN 2 games and you are in the semis .. With this negative, pathetic mindset I am concerned though .. it’s not the media’s fault you have lost 3 games .. !!!
I think he has a point inasmuch as while the fans by and large support well there are large sections of the media and an even larger nunber of commenters that do come across as revelling in the mistakes and misfotunes. As he said, it is not unique to cricket either.
Bairstow is the flakiest of cricketers – I should be keeping, opening as the team is clearly all about me.
Flakey beyond believe – get out there and score some runs (against good opposition).
Basically Josh Buttler has accepted it is their performances that have fallen short and will drive public opinion.
Bairstow needs a new dummy 😂
Got me there James as a life long Aussie…”bottler”? Not in the vernacular, never heard it before, but presumably it’s unflattering, if so maybe Johnny can claim it. V India? Sounds like the Last Chance Saloon.
“Bottler” means pretty much the same as choker. They were saying McGrath couldn’t hack it. I believe the word ‘useless’ was used too :-)
English crowds are wasting their breath booing the Aussies. After being brought up with all the crap from their own domestic crowd, it is water off a duck’s back to Warner, Smith & Co.
clearly the pressure has got to england.
england is basically becoming south africa of previous world cups: heavy favorites but choking when it matters most.
perhaps the kolpaks have infected england’s domestic setup with the choking virus now?
Bairstow was letting off steam, but he would have done better to be more analytical. Sports writers and pundits and former players are entitled to their opinion and former players such as Vaughan are disappointed by England’s poor performances against Sri Lanka and Australia in particular. Bairstow would have done better to admit that some batsmen, himself included, played poor shots at bad times, that some of the bowling was too short pitched and that the fielding needed to be sharper v Australia.
It doesn’t indicate a very happy camp right now, and Morgan has also seemed tetchy at times, as well as spouting ECB marketing men nonsense about “our batting mantra”.
To be honest, the Sri Lanka defeat seems to have shot the confidence of the England team, which tells us that it must have been very fragile in the first place. An inability to adapt to conditions and match situations will probably cost us a semi final place. India are just too strong in my view, especially the bowling attack. Edgbaston will be packed with India fans, so it will seem hostile for England. Let’s say Kohli wins the toss and bats, can we honestly see our decent but not great bowling attack restricting India to well under 300 ? I could also see Kohli starting with pace and spin when it’s our turn to bat, Roy (if fit) and Bairstow wouldn’t be so keen on facing spin up top, other captains have used this tactic too. My heart wants England to win, my head tells me that India are just too good on current form.
Then we come to NZ. If they beat Aus tomorrow, then they are guaranteed a semi final spot. That might make them a little more relaxed for their last game v Eng at Chester-le-Street, but they would still want to win. Sometimes it seems as if NZ rely too much on Williamson and Taylor, but they have achieved a good set of results and have won three close games, v Bangladesh, South Africa and West Indies. If they were to lose to Aus, then they would need to beat us to be certain of the semis. NZ are certainly good enough to beat England on current form.
So nothing less than two wins will do for England now, 10 points won’t be enough. Pakistan look very dangerous and I cannot see them losing to Afghanistan, even if the latter beat Pakistan in a warm-up match. Hard to call the Pakistan v Bangladesh game, Pakistan have the better bowling attack I think.
If England couldn’t cope with the pressure of chasing 233 to beat Sri Lanka, then we will not cope with a cauldron of Indian support at Edgbaston. Hope England prove me wrong, I would love them to win both games playing intelligent cricket. No more batsmen to throw their wickets away, no one minds if a player is out to a superb ball eg when Stokes was dismissed by Starc at Lords. No more mindless slogs picking out the fielders. No more sloppy fielding. Rotate the strike. Bowlers to try to hit the stumps more often too.
Also wanted to say that I hate it when England players talk about “our brand of cricket”.
‘Our batting mantra’ probably just about trumped ‘our brand of cricket’ as the worst line in existence.
Re: India I think much depends on whether we can take some early wickets. If we can make inroads and put their middle order under pressure then we’ve got a good chance.
Not taking away from your overall point Alex, but I think 10 points could be enough. It would rely though on Bangladesh beating Pakistan and not beating India.
Whatever you may think of the siege mentality that is currently surrounding this England squad, Bairstow has a point in that there are plenty of ‘cricket fans’ many of them who contribute to this blog who see the whole tournament as a symptom of the game’s current malaise and make no secret of their views that this present white ball squad are one dimensional flat track bullies. There seems no general appreciation of their achievements over the last couple of years. Every time they win either the opposition is poor, or the pitch is flat. There is no doubt that ex players have been quick to jump on the bandwagon, criticising the lack of adaptability of our batsmen, which has some merit at the moment. However, when your success is based on a particular style of play changing mid stream is not easy, it is as much mental as physical and this present squad I am sure believe they can beat anyone anywhere playing to their strengths. Accumulation is not their strength, as they only have Root comfortable in that style. India and New Zealand have shown vulnerability with the bat but seem to have enough in the locker to win ugly, can we follow suit on these stodgy pitches?
I am as frustrated as anyone with our lack of success in the last couple of games but we are still in with a decent shout of making the semis. From there it is who is best on the day, so I am not going to criticise the tactics until we are out. These players are not stupid, they are professional sportsmen who feel the pain of defeat more than any spectator. They don’t consider playing to their strengths throwing their wickets away.
As for Michael Vaughan, I cannot say I am a fan of his recent bevy of critical articles of this present England set up, both white and red ball. As a fairly recent England captain you would expect him to be closer to the present set up, like Strauss and Cook, but he never seems to have been accepted into the fold that way, so there could be the reason for his comparative spleen. It’s a shame as I am sure he would have good experience to impart, but doing it as a journalist will not get him respect from the present encumbents.
Well I’m one of them…
Completely unenthused by the pyjama stuff but dared to hope that England would prove me wrong by at least getting to the semis. At which point I may have become interested.
Doesn’t look likely now. Once the proper stuff starts I’ll be braying for Aussie blood but frankly even if they win it from here the whole thing looks like a fools errand.
Promoting and backing a team full of little but hitters seems a bit unEnglish to me. Which is also, incidentally, a bit uncricket. We know better than this. Staking everything financially on such a team, or dream, is disasterous and predictably frail.
Meanwhile, rewinding a bit, our proper cricket has been escorted to the sidelines for this shadow of a scent of shit? Our future as a cricketing nation gambled on a ten two off suit to hopefully win some glory for the board?
The mere fact that they gambled big, when all the media spin was supposedly about values; though not valuing your wicket or a quick single evidently, tells you all you need to know about the priorites.
Stick Archer into any of the teams lower than us in the table and they would probably be competing for our ‘rightful’ semi spot too… the same player who the team decided to exclude due to their ‘values’
Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad, and I can think of the Hundred different reasons to have little or no confidence. Either in the present or the future.
Frankly, I think, is is better for English cricket as a whole if we bomb out.
I had low expectations, clearly.
You certainly are one of them and the reason Bairstow made his comments. Entertainment has been dumbed down accross the board in the last few decades and the one thing cricket has always done better than any other sport is reflect changing mores in society, to it’s just being true to itself. There has never been ‘proper cricket’ just the game reflecting the times. Yes technically the game has lost specialisation in favour of versatility and that has lowered standards, bringing about white ball philosophies, but this has increased excitement as there is no longer a procession of dominance in the game, more sides becoming competitive domestically and internationally. If you pay to watch a one dayer you want value for money and preparing pitches where batsmen struggle to time the ball is not entertaining and can result in early finishes.
There needs to be more thought put into preparing good cricket wickets for one dayers, where runs are still available but there is some incentive for bowlers to be more than Cannon fodder. However it seems this is already passé as ‘The Hundred’ rolls into town. If it can attract the world’s best then it has a chance to succeed, but as we’ve seen with ‘The Big Bash’ you cannot guarentee the players, however much you offer to pay them and without the stars there is little hope of success.
Completely accept the changing horses in midstream argument. But the question for me is why we even developed a particular style of play? Why not just try to create a good cricket team that plays the situation. That seems to be what India do.
We developed this style of play because we have the players suited to it. It’s the old Alf Ramsay argument that you play to your strengths, not the oppositions weaknesses.india have one or two Butler types but not 5 or 6 like us. Oh and in case you didn’t notice James until last week we were World no 1, by far the most entertaining team, which is what the tournament is about surely and deservedly favourites. You can’t pluck the Chadavs of this world out of thin air and without him India may have lost a couple of games with poor batting. Yes India are a good team, but far from unbeatable and certainly not as memorable. Would Viv Richards, Tendulkar or Lara have been as great if they had chosen to alter their style to accumulate every time conditions favoured it. No! they were all attacking cricketers who believed their best chance of success was disrupting the bowling whatever the conditions. Would love to have 2 or 3 Roots, but they’re not around to pick.
Only if you define entertainment as being good at batting on roads, rather than being good at batting at 240 = par wickets. Which, I am guessing is not everyone, not even the majority’s of cricket followers, notion of entertainment.
i define entertainment as something that draws the crowds. It’s alright saying lower scores produce closer finishes, which there maybe something to, but what about the hours of scratching leading up to that. White ball cricket is about the batsmen, everything is geared to that, all the restrictions are there to limit the effectiveness of bowlers and fielders, that has always been the case. This has resulted in more negative bowling but a huge increase in fielding standards. It’s a different game to red ball which is more for the conissuer, which will never have mass appeal, however much we might want it to in an ideal world. The majority of cricket followers are already committed to the game, what the new boys want is to encourage a mass audience. I don’t think they’re too fussed about pleasing the existing fans.
These World Cup wickets are not good cricket wickets and it’s nobody’s fault, just the weather. Batsmen are struggling to cope with average bowling as the ball holds up making attacking batting, which is what white ball is trying to encourage, a bit of a lottery. I don’t mind a variety of wickets but they’re all very similar, hence the preponderance of slower short pitched stuff getting results.
That is a very limited and self-defeating definition of entertainment. Would no one in the UK show up for a 220 = par contest? Cricket is on its deathbed then. If you really need 400= par wickets to get people to come to the cricket, you might as well host a game concurrent with a BDSM conference, since then a lot of people come for sado-masochistic pleasure-arousing events apparently, given how handicapped bowlers are on such wickets.
Also, if you want to appeal to non-cricket fans, might help to
a) advertise the tournament
b) not hide it fully behind a paywall (1 AM highlights of matches played eons before then really don’t cut it to get new people into cricket).
c) host it alongside many major sporting events taking place in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, such as Women’s World Cup, Wimbledon, British Grand Prix, Tour de France (the final is on 14th of July, which is always a big day in the Tour – luckily for the ECB Froome got injured and will have to recover, which will reduce British interest in that event).
This World Cup, pretty much every skill has been on display and rewarded. Gung-ho batting from ball one, slowly constructing an innings, surviving hostile conditions, favouring pacers and spinners at times, pace bowling, spin bowling, fielding etc.
If these wickets are all the same, please have a look at the wickets England batted on between the World Cup (the lowest score England got in a won game, batting first was 310, in no other country came even close to 300). We have seen it countless times before, that if conditions favour bowling and England lose the toss, that they reach 40/5 in ODIs or a similar horror show. That is an unwillingness or inability to bat according to the conditions. Which suggest cricketing shortcomings among the batsmen.
It is not the organisers fault that England’s batting has been wanting in several aspects, most notably the building an innings in less than ideal batting conditions (Stokes deserves some credit for that). The problem for England on these wickets is that average bowling will not cut it. That average, or brainless batting will not cut it (as sub-average batting South Africa found out, even though no one really should be surprised they will not qualify for the semis).
But feel free to organise a World Cup where fielding is banned, that batsmen face bowling machines, or just have to defend one stump, all of which would suit England’s approach to the game.
How is pleasing the public self defeating? in the entertainment world that’s what it’s all about as far as the entertainment companies go.
If you prepare good batting tracks you are guaranteed some attacking cricket. One thing that puzzles me is how would you know in advance its was going to be a 220 contest and as I said, how entertaining would most of the action be leading up to a last over finish of which there’s been precious few in this tournament even in the lower scoring games.
The wickets have all slow throughout the tournament, but we had some half decent weather leading up to it, so for the first few games, before the incessant rain set in and made life difficult for the groundsmen to prepare wickets, batsmen were able to take advantage. Also the bowlers had not twigged that taking pace off the ball made life difficult u til a few matches in. Now everyone’s doing it an it has become totally predictable. Even ordinary bowlers are able to restrict by scrambling the seam. It doesn’t take much skill and it’s dominating this World Cup.
The next thing is you can’t plan an event of this size when you want. It has to fit in with Player commitments and stadium availability. Also no one realised events like the Women’s footie would be such a big hit. The Tour de France has very little following in this country and the British Grand Prix lasts a few days.
By and large cricket fans prefer runs to wickets and high scoring games produce more entertainment than low scoring, merely by having more action in them. How many bowlers are mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Lara and Tendulkar, even though their achievements are as great and essentially bowlers win matches in red ball, as you have to bowl the other side out however many runs you score. With white ball of course this is not the case and batsmen win as many matches as bowlers.
If you’re going to a test match would you rather go on days 1,2 or 3, when the pitch is largely behaving itself and the contest is more even, or day’s 4 and 5 when it’s starting to break up and batting can become something of a lottery, even against ordinary bowling.
Yeah, how utterly exciting it is when we are bored to death for seven hours where unskilled bowlers, who can bat a bit are to be preferred over the skilled ones, since skill does not matter one iota on a pitch that has been laid by someone in the Ministry of Transport. Would not be surprised if this is the best road in the whole area around Birmingham. How entertaining! (And yes, I have criticised such pitches across the world)
Pray tell, how are the people you claim to represent going to get tickets for a World Cup, and watch this “spectacular entertainment” if they did not know it was on in the first place, and tickets have long been sold out months in advance?
Oh right, the tickets are sold to EXISTING fans of the game, rather than the people you claim to represent who are not existing cricket fans but might be.
People who:
1) don’t have the tickets because the tickets were already sold months in advance
2) people who don’t know the cricket is on.
3) people who apparently have to stay up until 1 AM, and than have to be inspired by 5 minutes of highlights. Or alternatively, need to sell a kidney (most jobs don’t pay well, and if you are say an office worker, you are usually not at liberty to spend 7 weeks ‘working’ from home to watch the cricket.
Never mind that tickets cost an arm and a leg, and you either have the choice of suffering dehydration or hunger pangs, or part with another substantial amount of cash to drink glorified urine and something that hopefully does not cause one to suffer diarrhoea.
But maybe, you know, ludicrous idea, it may be extremely hard to comprehend, but it might be the case that people who buy tickets to go and watch cricket, might expect cricket to be played, rather than either lawn bowls, tennis, or baseball. Extremely unlikely, but it might be a thought worth considering. So stop this prattle of trying to reach new fans, as the ECB does not care one bit who shows up, as long as they get their cash. That is the ONLY thing they care about.
It is clear that the powers that be are really doing everything they can to reach those people, they actively hate, loathe and despise. As evidenced by the attendance during the World Cup, because this is just about the only time that non-White minorities in the United Kingdom show up to attend matches as per the ECB evidence that was used to justify the Hundred (audience 95% white according to their research) – evidence that is blatantly discordant with the recreational playing numbers. Not that the ECB care.
As evidenced by total lockout of the World Cup on free to air. As evidenced by the glorious advertising campaigns in the host cities.
But no, 400 after 400 is EXCITING. Wow, because personal opinion, biased as it is (slogging is the only thing England batsmen are consistently good at, as evidenced by heroic chases against Sri Lanka and Australia), is of course the only measuring stick that you will entertain. But no, we have all take YOUR word for it, because you know it all. Okay. We all have to take your word for England being the greatest team, presumably because they can only bat on roads. Okay. Sounds like an argument no one can refute.
You need to read what I write. I never claimed to represent anyone, never claimed England were the greatest team and never claimed to know all about anything, you certainly don’t have to take my word for anything, just look dispassionately at the evidence. This kind of offhand criticism just reinforces prejudice.
Firstly, having been brought up watching cricket at Edgbaston since the ’60’s wickets have had their featherbed periods but under groundsman Steve (let’s water the square even when it’s rained) Rouse almost lost their test status because wickets weren’t lasting. Nowadays yes it’s a good batting track but hardly a road.
Secondly most people these days rely more on the internet for advertising than anywhere else and there’s been plenty of advertising for cricket World Cup tickets on websites there.,
Thirdly, having trawled these sites for ticket availability and prices, apart from the England games, where I agree prices have been prohibitive, there have been plenty of tickets available at around £50 on all grounds up to a few days before the tournament started. Including last minute returns from corporate reservations. Compare that with prices for 2 hours at a Premiership football match.
Fourthly England play a high risk style that suits the mentality of their batsmen and are bound to come unstuck occasionally. The important thing is that they have enough self belief to stick to their guns. It’s typical of this blog that the anti white ballers pick on failed chases, like Sri Lanka and Australia, without mentioning the successful games to balance things out. It’s the reason Bairstow sounded off the way he did. No doubt people will be saying how much luck he had at the start of his innings today, without mentioning things like Roit Sharma being dropped off a sitter by Root in single figures. This is where my frustration comes from.
All the teams in this tournament have had their slip ups, India could have easily lost 2 games, including against Afganistan. New Zealand’s batting has looked over reliant on Williamson and even the Aussies have had to rely a deal on Stark to protect some relatively low scores.
I agree the TV coverage is abysmal, but that’s not stopping people going to the matches.
I don’t get how you can’t see that 300+ is more exciting than a struggling 200, even if only for the fact that you get more action. I feel sorry for you of you can’t see past the ‘one dimensional flat track bully’ syndrome and appreciate how skilful these batsmen are, playing the sort of high risk shots the game’s never seen before. You miss so much if you just see it as slogging, which it clearly for the most part is not. It’s as carefully practiced as red ball technique, as certain aspects have to be re-learned..
If you can’t appreciate what a super effort we put out against India today then you’ll never get what the white ball game is all about. The wicket was not a road, the ball held up and bounced off the seam and there was some turn, so the sort of strokeplay we subjected a decent Indian attack to was pretty Exhilarating and perfectly in tune with the style that made us world number 1. In reply much of the Indian effort seemed fairly desperate by comparison and eventually they appeared to give up the ghost of trying to reach the target even though they had wickets in hand. You can bet your life this England set up would have gone for it.
Disagree I’m afraid. We’ve shaped the team and the players around this philosophy rather than shaping the philosophy around the players. It was a conscious decision they made after the 2015 World Cup disaster when they decided our ODI team was an anachronism in the modern game. So they went from one extreme to the other.
Bairstow, for example, personifies this quite nicely. He never used to score at a 100+ strike rate (not long ago he wasn’t in the team for this reason). He started opening up the off-side and trying to hit every ball for 4, precisely to get to fit into ODI team, and his test form suffered as a result. I’d also argue that we have plenty of talented white ball players available who have been ignored. Dawid Malan, for example, is a much better white ball player than a red one. Under different management we might have been a fixture in the ODI side.
Yes England got to number one playing the way they do – nobody is denying they’re not a quality team – but many of us have been warning for a long time that they lose too many games playing the way they do, and can’t expect to run through a World Cup without the odd disaster. It’s been said many times over the last year or two by many observers that we struggle to adapt, and only seem to play one way, but they put their fingers in their ears and refuse to learn. That’s what’s frustrating. They could be an even better team if they weren’t so intransigent.
As I say in the article they may yet win the World Cup. Everyone hopes they do. But I do think the philosophy they’ve adopted doesn’t give them the best chance of success. Why not just create a good cricket team that tries to play what’s in front of them? Instead we got caught up trying to be trailblazers and revolutionising the game. I think in many respects ego played a role in this. We believed our own hype, and really thought we could reinvent the game – making 50 over cricket just an extension of T20. But how many games in any World Cup have ended up being 400 plays 400? It was an illusion.
England got to No1 on the back of winning bilateral series. Good for them. We’ve all enjoyed it. But I’ve long said winning series 3-2 or 4-2 isn’t necessarily the best preparation for global events when one defeat can be very costly – let alone 3. England have had some spectacularly good days over the last few years but also some spectacularly bad ones. And I think this was a warning that went largely unheeded.
Well Morgan says today that he’s going to play *an extensive and substantive form of cricket”. Presumably it means more slogging into the stands, or is it ECB speak for something else? Does not seem they are going to change their “batting mantra”. What a load of bollox, any one that comes out with such crap doesn’t deserve to win.
Shaping the philosophy around the players is fine if you have the players. If your best players are attacking it makes sense to base your philosophy of attack and vice-versa. To suggest Dawid Malan is a better alternative than what we have seeems plain daft to me. He’s had his chances like Vince and just didn’t cut the mustard.
Only the players know what their best chances of success are. If they are relaxed and happy playing in a certain way, given their recent record, who are we to argue because their style gives the opposition a chance. Surely this produces good entertainment. Do we really want to be a Steve Waugh team, only memorable for winning or do we want to challenge ourselves to win with panache and produce performances which those who see them will be talking about for ages. You can’t have it both ways! We have the batsmen to excite like never before so let’s give them the opportunity. Ok so we may fail to qualify for the semis, but I still believe the philosophy is right for the moment. When we have to choose from lesser talents we can resort to a more cautious approach.
Used to love Tommy Docherty’s attitude at Utd. When asked what he thought about his team’s defensive capabilities, after they’d let in a few goals, he said, ‘I don’t know, I’ve never seen us defend’.
“…if you have the players…” But surely the very best players would not only be able to hit their way into the record books when conditions suit that, but grind out a harder-earned victory when conditions don’t suit. In the end, international sports teams are judged on how they perform in the most challenging conditions and competitions–and this “..but the pitches didn’t suit us…” complaining from Bairstow hints at complacency on that front.
I’m not sure whether this is a failure of playing nous, coaching, systemic problems or a combination–but it seems to suggest that England “have the players” a little bit less than is often assumed. They certainly don’t have the strength in depth that no. 1 teams usually have–if James Vince really is England’s fourth-best ODI opener, then god help the ECB!
For one of the world’s richest cricketing nations, which has reshaped its strategy to prioritise one-day cricket at the expense of multi-day cricket (look at the official apathy which greeted the hammering in the last Ashes), failure to get to the semis at home from a base of being no. 1 in the world really isn’t good enough. That I think is what people are picking up on–and, as Barney Ronay pointed out, that the administrative hierarchy of the ECB often comes across as so odious and hubristic.
I didnt say we had great players I said they were talented attacking players, so it makes sense to use their innate abilities, rather than water them down to a utilitarian style that may scrape us wins in tight affairs. I don’t want to see Butler and co reduced to grinding out results lesser players with better temperaments could do. It’s like putting George Best back in defence to provide extra cover. It’s easy to have a solid temperament if you haven’t got much natural flare. The flare players in any sport rarely grind. It’s never easy to appreciate real talent unless you see it close up by being there, TV doesn’t re-create the moment, so each match is a separate event for the spectator.
Maybe we’ve got too many players of the same type, even for white ball cricket, but I don’t think we’ll see the like of our top 6 or 7 again in our lifetime, so I’d like them to be true to their natures and give us memorable moments, which after all is what sporting memories are all about.
I don’t care whether we win this World Cup, though it would be the icing on the cake, this batting unit is something I won’t forget in a hurry because of the way they go about their business, not the results. I know most of you think this is all bollocks but there’s more to great sport than winning as a spectator.
The things that keep me going back to the game I love are a legacy of these moments. My most vivid I will take to my grave with a smile on my face, like watching a 17 year old Gower produce art with a cricket bat and Paul Smith’s flaxen haired youthful enthusiasm as he hurled down balls you could hardly see and smote quickies back over the pavilion with the sort of abandon you would only asssoiate with a youthful Sobers.
I know you’ll not necessarly agree with my standpoint, but that’s about as succinct as I can be in expressing it.
The worst of Bairstow’s response is that he confirmed that they had expected to win on roads. He perhaps has the anger of one misled by the team management and I include Strauss. It’s the mantra or die. Well it might be the latter. How did this come to pass? Relentless propaganda from the ECB about entertainment and the concentration on sixes. I would have preferred some better analysis from the media instead we have talk about loose shots without looking at causes. It is poor cricket turning the game into a circus and in the last two years batsmanship has been ignored in favour of fearless cricket. But roads don’t present any fear to batsmen as they negate bowlers. It’s foolish to believe that the world will give us what we want in a competition. But Bairstow is complaining about just that. But I feel for him. He’s been sent naked into an arena without any defensive strategies or tactics. How can one aggressive approach be any kind of preparation? Jason Roy must be wondering what’s in store for him as he exemplifies the aggressor with the bat. To ask him to change now is ridiculous. Yet the example is Warner who dug in with Finch to form a partnership the media called “old fashioned”. Too much T20 has addled the cricketing brain. The idiocy behind this is the ECB and their “cool” cricket Hundred. But there’s nothing cool about looking dumb. Stokes is the exception who learnt his cricket at Durham on pitches which test batsmen. He also learnt to fight a quality not appreciated by the ECB who ruthlessly dismantled the Durham side more than the sum of its parts. No one wants England to fail to prove a point. But the point is proved that England have been poorly prepared and poorly led from the top, Losing three games wasn’t part of the mantra. Now it is going to take some independent and individual rethinking instead of brainwashing. As someone said these are professionals and Bairstow learnt his batting at Yorkshire. Forget the mantra – do what you do at home.
Spoilt entitled brat. Grow up.
You try pushing your professional boat out and see it criticised in such an offhand way by amateurs who know nothing of the time and effort you put into your job and then knock Bairstow’s reaction.
If it’s going to be warm, then England will be more confident as the pitches and conditions will be more suited to them, not withstanding the Indian spin bowlers.
I believe they’ll qualify from here. I’d never depend on Pakistan winning matches they have to, chasing rainbows that one.
Pakistan are the big worry though as their remaining fixtures are Afghanistan and Bangladesh. One would expect them to beat the former (famous last words!) so basically it all comes down to the Bangladesh fixture, which should be a brilliant game. If Pakistan beat Bangladesh then England need to win both their remaining games or we’re out. Perhaps our position is therefore more precarious than I let on in the article. However, like you, deep down I just think we’ll qualify.
Many valid points above, but I do have a degree of sympathy – I think his father’s suicide affected him (and continues to do so) far more than is generally realised.
Everyone in that dressing room need to look at how Jos Buttler handled this situation and repeat that. It’s not rocket surgery guys, if you know critics are just paid to say things, why get bothered about it?
Agreed. I thought Jos Buttler’s presser was spot on.
Easy to say when you’re not involved. When you’re giving it everything to try and succeed it’s tough to have outsiders with no stake in proceeding putting their amateur oar in. It’s about temperament and clearly Butler and Bairstow are polar opposites. It’s no co-incidence that Journalists go for the Bairstows and Stokes of this world rather than the official statements from the calmer crew of Butler and Morgan. They want a rise and the more highly strung usually oblige. Wearing your heart on your sleeve isn’t a sin, just as being diplomatic isn’t interesting.
Not much time for YJB’s comments although like him as a player. However they do seem particularly directed at Vaughan and I wonder if Vaughan ever asks himeself why there is as near universal disrespect for his ‘analysis’ as there is respect for his rival captain in the 2005 series? That’s not a scenario many would have anticipated back then when Vaughan seemed to have the much sharper cricket brain. Manifest favouritism linked to conflicts of interest, bandwagon-jumping on the latest fad and an unwillingness to get your hands dirty with actual coaching instead of taking the easy life in the media probably have something to do with it.
Reports from England’s training say Archer was little to be seen suggesting he’s out with this side strain.
Good stat showing the clash in styles between the two sides is that 15 England batsmen have been out caught on the boundary in the tournament so far compared to just two for India.
“Good stat showing the clash in styles between the two sides is that 15 England batsmen have been out caught on the boundary in the tournament so far compared to just two for India.”
Add this to the stat from the other day when England only scored 3 singles in the first 10 overs against Australia, and I think we’ve got a pretty good summation of England’s predicament right there.
As I seem to be the only sympathetic voice on this blog I’m going to make one last appeal for the England set up as a sporting tactic.
In the 1970’s Holland produced the most talented footie team I’ve ever seen, and their ‘sexy’ football, epitomised by the likes of Cruyff energised a country to carry on producing in that vein with the likes of Robbin, Bergkampf, Van Persia and Overmaas. They never won the World Cup, often flattered to deceive, and wouldn’t compromisee their style give themselves a better chance winning. Germany on the other hand continue to win loads with largely unimaginative but extremely efficient organization.
Who do you remember?
In 2003 we won the Rugby World Cup. A great achievement, enjoyed by the nation. My local opened its doors at 6am to show the match live and provided beer and full English for your ticket. It’s was a great occasion. However what do we remember of the whole tournament to take to our graves, the kicking of Wilkinson, which was based on punishing opponents errors not creating or scoring tries, or perhaps Jason ‘twinkletoes’ Robinson, dancing his way through bemused defences. Now we have a manager in Eddie Jones trying to reverse this efficiency trend and play ‘sexy’ try scoring rugby. He has not always been successful and came close to losing his job as we stumbled our way through the 6 nations, but he has kept faith in his original idea to make us the best, not by winning every game, but playing a try scoring style that is designed to intimidate the opposition, because he feels we have the players to do it. If we fail in this year’s world up he will probably lose his job, but will be suitably unrepentant of his attempt. It’s not a s simple as style over substance, it’s about producing something other teams can’t. This is the mantra. Winning does make you the best, memories do.
Once upon a time (a few months ago) I read a quote by Eoin Morgan, and my reaction was, “Wow. What a horrible thing to say. How can he say such a thing in public? What a dick!”. A short while later, I happened to see the same thing on video, together with the question he got asked, whereupon I thought, “Oh. That makes sense. Nothing wrong with that at all.” So, the moral of that story is, things sometimes appear different in context and I’m not going to judge anyone for some random out-of-context quote anymore (unless it fits my world-view!).
Now we all know that Bairstow is not the most eloquent and diplomatic of interviewees, and one thing he hasn’t learned so far is that no one actually wants to know what he thinks, even if they ask him. It’s not like he went on an unhinged rant of sorts, he was being asked questions and answered them. I think it’s safe to assume that he didn’t just start complaining about the pitches out of the blue, he was most probably asked about them. And he’s right, too, they haven’t prepared on pitches like these, although we’ve all known for, like, ever, that they struggle when the pitches are tricky and the ball does something. I’ve been following cricket for four years, and the very first game I watched was one where England, after posting some huge scores against New Zealand, suddenly found themselves confronted with conditions that didn’t favour their aggressive style, and they folded. Back then, Bairstow was one of the few who could actually handle it, but he’s kind of lost this skill somewhere after the Champions Trophy. I assume that’s due to lack of practice in difficult conditions. If we all know that, you’d think the management would realize it, too, but they just seem to close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears.
He was shown nasty tweets by Michael Vaughan and KP and asked what he thinks about them. People always say they want characters in their teams and not corporate bots, but what they really seem to want is smooth talkers that suck up to them like Buttler does. And Bairstow hasn’t started a row with Michael Vaughan, Vaughan has been goading him on twitter and instagram and Bairstow has said nothing in response. And Vaughan has a go at Bairstow in particular at every opportunity, and sadly the media give him a platform for his unsubstantiated, overexcited claims and fake outrage. (I mean how can you take someone seriously who uses punctuation like this?!??!!! #justsaying)
So in the end, this is quite the storm in the teacup, with everyone prepared to assume the worst and some people enjoying themselves by adding fuel to the fire, but I guess people have to let off steam somehow.
With all the “what ifs” being discussed about wins and losses to make up the final four, I am surprised there haven’t been any permutations around abandoned games. Could England get through with one win and one no result. Maybe Bangladesh could get 4th spot with two no results – I guess the combinations are endless. Has the weather improved to the extent that all games are expected to be played ?
Oh they just got worse alright. With Pakistan needing 9 an over off the last 5, Afghanistan’s captain brings himself back on / having otherwise threatened nothing up to that point and gifts them 18 runs. He’s probably been Pakistan’s best player. Cheers fella.
Actually the best player for Pakistan was the umpiring. Two clear outs not given, including of Imad Wasim, who should have been sent on his way for 1 from 5 balls. Instead he somehow ended up as Man of the Match.
I know he’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I really liked the way Wahab wanted the strike in those final few overs for Pakistan. He was up for the contest and delivered for his team. They’ll have to play much better to beat Bangladesh and it was a pity that Afghanistan didn’t get a first win (as they’ve got more practice and the pitches have helped spin more, they’ve looked much better – who’d have thunk it?).
Starc now averages under 13 for nearly 50 wickets in WCs. Nobody (with a decent number of wickets) has a lower average – or more five-fors. The stats are saying he’s the GOAT in this format (and it would be hard to argue external factors have helped because he’s playing in an age where the dice have been loaded more for the batsmen).
That Gulbadeen over going for 18 ! And Afghanistan were doing so well, but he just didn’t have enough overs to play with from his top spinners, Rashid and Nabi. Two dodgy umpiring decisions, which Afghanistan couldn’t review because they had wasted one earlier on. Pakistan got home in the end, but it was nervous effort for them. Bangladesh still have so much to play for themselves, so that final game is a hard one to call.
England must win their final two games, it’s as simple as that, because 10 points might not be enough. I was wondering whether the Bairstow-Vaughan twitter spat was actually meant to be a distraction technique, whilst the team actually concentrates on preparation for the India game tomorrow. But I fear that it is actually a sign of a rather tetchy England camp. It would be great if Bairstow could take out his frustration on India’s bowlers tomorrow, but I fear some of the players just aren’t in the right place mentally. Also, we have struggled to bowl teams out, and I genuinely fear that we won’t be able to break through India’s powerful top order.
Thinking about how good the England players are, one wonders which England players the other teams’ captains would want in their squad, given what we have seen so far. Joe Root would get plenty of votes, certainly, and Stokes too probably. But who else on current form ? Archer has picked up plenty of wickets, but other fast bowlers have impressed more.
Also wanted to praise Jim Maxwell, and Jeremy Coney, on TMS today for criticising the lack of cricket on free to view TV in this country. Jim Maxwell was really passionate about this issue, and Jeremy Coney observed that the ECB just see cricket as a product, so don’t care if fans who cannot afford SKY or to go to the games have to make do with a short late evening highlights package, or (as in my case) just the radio, online clips, and excellent blogs like this one. Well done to both of them for speaking out.
Just shows that spending all that time in the gym isn’t necessarily the best way to go. Pakistan are having the sort of tournament that creates a ‘meant to be’ mentality in players and supporters alike. If Afganistan had a Tamin Iqbal type batsman I reckon they could have changed the face of this World Cup with at least 2 or 3 wins.
Oi, Vaughan – going well for you? Don’t bother answering.
Well England’s campaign back on track. But India made little effort in the last 15 or so overs to go for it. What was Dhoni doing or not doing. I wonder why? Hope it’s not what I’m thinking. Mmmm.
Dhoni’s done this before when he was captain. It didn’t make any more sense then. You can bet your life if it had been England we would have gone for it even if it meant perishing in the attempt.
Well done England for winning a game I feared we would lose. Good toss to win, some luck early on, the non-review of the Roy glove to the keeper by India, powerful batting from the openers, odd tactics at times from Kohli, then a solid bowling and fielding performance,praise for Plunkett, Woakes and Archer. Only negatives: Root dropping that slip catch off Sharma, a brainless shot from Morgan again, Wood and Rashid not bowling so well. So still lots of room for improvement against NZ. A lot is still riding on that game, so England must not now get cocky and complacent and assume everything will be easy at Chester-le-Street. Today’s win was a big improvement on the poor showings v Sri Lanka and Australia, and they had the rub of the green too. Don’t believe that India deliberately threw the game as some are saying elsewhere. Jadeja in the starting 11 would give the lower order more impact, he’s always on as a sub fielder anyway !
Good win for England. No doubt the hitters they possess they will be difficult to beat for any team so long as the pitch lets them play freely. India bowling wasn’t great particularly Shami’s overs of full tosses in the death and thought the result could have been different if India reviewed and also brought on the pace bowlers for 4 overs to clamp down on England running away during overs 10-20. I don’t think NZ will let that happen, but the NZ batting is also weaker than India so I am expecting this to come down to the pitch and whether NZ can take early wickets
Morgan is a worry at present. You can bet your life Boult and Fergurson will pepper him with short stuff.
You say the Indian bowling wasn’t great, but it hadn’t been put under pressure in this tournament. This is what the likes of Roy and Bairstow do, they intimidate by being aggressive from the start, whether they’re playing and missing, edging or giving chances. The way they used their feet to the Indian spinners was beautiful to watch. We made the Indian bowling look ordinary in a way no other side has been able to.
Random thoughts. 50/50, as with its predecessor- the Sunday League, is indeed about entertainment. The WC is different but for the rest, I don’t believe the result is important. Simply, the audience and the players have a good time.
The reason that captains recite the company hand-outs goes back to when the Press first chose to misquote, misinterpret or lie about what was said in interview since controversy was thought to sell more newspapers. Jonny should just not bother with them. It’s worked for me for many years.
Roads. I reckon Jasprit Bumrah can bowl well on anything and, close behind him, Starc, Archer and an on form Malinga. If you’re good enough ….
Reading the vast majority of the comments, it’s hard to think Bairstow’s reaction to similar stuff from Vaughan was completely unjustified.
Good to see that he channelled the emotion positively.
I like him a lot; great cricketer.