Got over the events of Monday morning yet? Me neither. The post mortem is very much in full swing and it hasn’t been pretty. You could say it’s been Nathan Lyon handsome.
Sorry. Things are so bad that not even cheap gags at the opposition spinner’s expense are cheering me up today – especially since news broke that he’s currently dating this stunning blonde. What a sad state of ‘affairs’.
Anyway I digress. I’m not here to talk about sportsmen’s love lives. I’m here to talk about our first true love: the England cricket team. And what a cruel and unfaithful wench she is. The Aussies literally had their way with her.
With this in mind, it’s about time we talked about upgrading our team for a younger model. But which players should stay and which ones should take a trip to Dumpsville? Don’t pretend you haven’t all made your minds up already.
England’s predicament is particularly tricky because we don’t have a queue of talented youngsters ready to take the elder statesmen’s places. Twelve years of ECB mismanagement have put paid to that. So where do we start? Let’s sidestep the players for now and start with the head coach.
Although I supported Bayliss’s appointment – I thought his greater international experience gave him the edge over Jason Gillespie – it looks like Lord Brockett and I got this one wrong. Bayliss’s record is poor, very poor. He’s lost over 40% of his test matches in charge (twice as much as both Peter Moores and Andy Flower) and it’s pretty evident after his interview the other day that he hasn’t got a clue how to fix things.
Before said interview I was ready to defend Bayliss. After all, there’s not a lot he can do if he doesn’t have the players (which he clearly doesn’t). However, I’ve changed my mind because it seems pretty obvious that he’s still out of touch with county cricket.
When Bayliss was appointed, I originally hoped that he’d immerse himself in our domestic game (when time permitted) and identify young players with potential like Duncan Fletcher used to do. Perhaps there were some diamonds in the rough like Marcus Trescothick to unearth?
Instead it looks like Bayliss is simply happy to shrug his shoulders and admit “I don’t have the answers”. On the one hand I applaud his honesty. On the other I think “well what are we paying you for then”?
I’ve heard it suggested that Bayliss should be sacked as test coach but retained as our white ball specialist. And why not? He’s actually done pretty well with the fancy Dans. The problem, of course, is that Bayliss is a heavyweight coach who probably won’t take a demotion too well. Why should he suffer such ignominy when he can simply walk away and find gainful employment elsewhere – somewhere warmer where players don’t piss on the outfield or pour drinks over their heads?
As a result, I think it’s probably time to part ways with Trev. I won’t be too upset if he stays, but given the choice I’d probably prefer to start anew. As long as his successor isn’t Mick Newell or Ashley Giles. And I’d be amazed if the latter isn’t high up the Brockett list.
Next we move on to the top of the batting order. Yes, it’s time we talked about Alastair. Now many people might be surprised by Cook’s failures in the Ashes series. After all, isn’t Chef the greatest England batsman of all time? The problem, however, is that he isn’t. He isn’t even close. And he never has been.
Cook has always been a technically flawed opener with incredible resilience and powers of concentration. This means that he’s brilliant against mediocre bowling (or good bowling on featherbeds) because his technique isn’t tested and he’ll grind the opposition into the dust.
However, when he’s presented with a real test – like he has in the series – he usually fails. He might get the odd score, just like any test No.1 to No7 would, but you simply can’t rely on him to produce in tough conditions.
If you don’t believe me, go back and look at every one of Cook’s test centuries on his cricinfo profile page. You’ll find that the overwhelming majority of his 31 test centuries were either (a) scored against weak attacks, (b) scored against Hilfenhaus and Siddle on the 2010/11 Ashes, (c) scored in India in 2012 (when he was superb albeit on dry decks with no seam movement), or (d) scored over a decade ago.
Consequently I’m not surprised in the least that Cook has flopped terribly on this tour. There’s a reason why he averages considerably less against Australia (36) and South Africa (35) than anyone else. However, having said that, I’m not ready to throw a player with 31 test hundreds into the dustbin quite yet.
The fact remains that Cook is still a serviceable test opener. And he’ll probably continue to make huge scores against mediocre bowling – which, let’s be honest, isn’t a bad skill to have. Therefore, unless Haseeb Hameed starts the season like a train, I’m happy for Cook to carry on playing for England. That’s if he actually wants to.
Next on the list is Moeen Ali – I’ll reserve judgement on James Vince until the end of the series. The problem with Mo is that he’s not a good enough batsman to bat in the top six (especially on Australian pitches), and he’s not good enough to be England’s frontline spinner. He’s good at home but useless away.
What Moeen is, however, is a very handy all-rounder. He’s an ideal No.2 spinner and a delicious lower-order stroke maker. And with Ben Stokes likely to return at some point, England’s plethora of all-rounders means we can afford a luxury player like Mo. We just shouldn’t expect him to pull up trees against high class pacemen on pitches tailor-made to expose his flaws.
Finally, I’d like to talk about the two lynchpins of our bowling attack: Anderson and Broad. Let’s begin with Jimmy.
Personally I think Jimmy is just as good now, at the age of 35, as he’s ever been. He’s still accurate, very skilful, and effective on most surfaces: his 12 wickets at 26 thus far in the Ashes is a creditable return (even though he screwed the pooch in the first innings at Adelaide).
As a result, I’d like Anderson to continue in England colours. He can play a vital role in nurturing the next generation. What’s more, we’re going to need his experience if I get my way: that’s right folks, I’m just about done with Stuart Broad.
At his best Broady is a brilliant seamer. When his pecker’s up, his legs are pumping, and his pace is over 85 mph, he’s a fine bowler in most conditions. The problem, however, is that we don’t see these miracle spells very often these days. He’s too often medium paced, ineffective, and semi-injured.
I said at the beginning of this piece that it’s hard to replace senior players unless there’s someone ready to take their place. In Broad’s case there is. And his name is Craig Overton. Our attack only needs one tall right-arm fast-medium seamer, so we might as well invest in the 23 year old who might improve rather than the 31 year old who’s slowing down.
So that’s my tuppence for now. I could go on but my Mrs – who has just reminded me that she’s actually my first true love – wants me to make the kids some cheese sandwiches for tea.
Hmmm. I might just make them Marmite sarnies instead. The English cricket team might be crap but we’ve still got the best cuisine in the world. Better than that Vegemite crap.
James Morgan
Sorry James but I cannot imagine Anderson ‘nurturing’ anybody. He is a surly individual and though I hear that he is a delight off the field and loves nothing better than to help old ladies over the road, I got the distinct impression during this series and, in fact, all the series under Cook that he does what he likes, sets his own field and takes no notice of anybody. Ditto Broad who I would be delighted to see the back of. But we will probably have Jimmy for some time yet no doubt. Neither of these two have been any visible support to Root at all, correct me if you think I am wrong, perfectly willing to say that I have not watched all the games, looking after grandchildren got in the way a bit, but that is my impression.
I also found it funny to read somewhere, probably Mike Selvey said it or Pringle or somebody like that, that Joe Root would have the experience of Alastair to rely on and he would be a great source of help. Well, pardon me, but I had to have a lie down after that.
You will not be surprised to read, of course, that I would like to see the back of the Chef as well but I see Bailey has said that he AC will let us know if an when he wants to go. Words fail
There is a rumour that Anderson and Broad bowled poorly in the first inns at Adelaide partly because they didn’t agree with Root’s decision to bowl first. I really can’t provide much insight into the dressing room dynamics, but it’s long been thought that Anderson / Broad (as senior players) are something of a forceful duo. Perhaps Root will find it easier to put his own stamp on the team when one or both have retired or been moved on? I really don’t know but it’s interesting to speculate.
Weren’t the “bowling cabal” of Anderson, Broad and Swann supposed to have had a considerable hand in the departure of someone called “KP” (admittedly, so did KP)? This report suggests a harmonious dressing room, but I’m not so sure. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/ashes/england-australia-ashes-defeat-trevor-bayliss-melbourne-perth-james-anderson-a8116486.html
Not just KP but many other young bowlers I suspect. Not to mention Trott. The whole humiliating anyone who drops a catch seems rather prep school fagotry to me.
Interesting to hear that Overton injured his rib again on the boundary and said that he’d have been in trouble if he didn’t stop it as it was one of the senior bowler’s figures at stake.
I’m not sure whose bowling it was off.
Had a look at the replay..
Looks like it was off Broad.
So… He’s up to his old tricks by the sounds of it. I am the great I am was unacceptable to my mind when he was taking wickets for fun. When he’s bowling like a drain and castigating young players for missing chances or fielding then red card in my opinion.
The only opposite side to this I could put is that there isn’t a player that the Aussie public would more want rid of more. With Overton out we don’t exactly have a replacement.
Maybe relegrate him to sweeping the shop floor if he does play.
Well if they bowled poorly because they disagreed with Root they should be booted out forthwith
And Anderson then went on to say that the batsmen had let the team down…
Wasn’t there another England cricketer destroyed by “rumours”? I’m sure his name will come to me. Anyway I didn’t believe them then and I’m not inclined to believe them now. Captaincy (and coaching) of the England team has been a total vacuum for years now, and Anderson was quite entitled to criticise the batters for the failure of Plan A (keep the Aussies in the field for a couple of days) although why anyone could have expected it to work, given the strength of the batting, is beyond me. If there was a Plan B I failed to detect it. As to Root’s “stamp” well good luck finding that.
There don’t seem to be many strong characters in the team so I’d make Jimmy captain then you folks would be able to criticism him for a) bowling himself too much b) not bowling himself enough or c) only bowling when he could get some cheap wickets. You can probably come up with d) e) and f).
Could not agree more with this!
The impression I get is very much that Anderson does what he wants. And the attempt at blaming the coaches, when he and Broad bowled consistently short with the new ball at Adelaide, was reprehensible. Especially so since he is currently vice captain.
I think Broaf and Anderson are an obnoxious arrogant pair. Root needs to stamp his authority over them and bring them into line. No matter how ‘senior’ they are.
Hmm. I wasn’t aware that Alastair Cook was a selector as well as a player.
He certainly seems to have an input. He didn’t like opening with Compton because he scored too slowly..
Yes, I don’t like the fact that Cook gets to decide when he retires, a luxury not afforded to KP or Bell in the past.
You do get the feeling that certain players have become “untouchables” and that Anderson and Broad have too much power in the dressing room. Anderson is a fine bowler and he hasn’t had a bad series, so I’d still want him in the team. Broad has some sort of chronic knee problem and perhaps shouldn’t have even gone down under this time round. As others on here have said, some of the medical back up doesn’t seem all that good.
Strauss needs to go. He was never the right choice but fitted the bill perfectly to keep KP out and back Cook. I’d have a clean sweep and get rid of Bayliss and Farbrace aswell. I’d also retire Garry Ballance from international cricket so that next winter England can take a reserve batsman on tour who offers a realistic alternative. There is no point Cook playing on. I would make him go on the Graham Norton show either side of Kevin Pietersen and Piers Morgan and explain his stance on KPs sacking and then stick him on the red chair and let Pietersen pull the lever.
My dream scenario!
Anderson’s average in this series has been flattered with wickets under that night session in Adelaide and during Australia’s 2nd innings in the 3rd test, he hasn’t really shown up when it matters. He hasn’t been a great VC either, I wouldn’t be surprised if half the team hates his guts.
Only half?
Australia didn’t have a 2nd innings in Perth. You might be pointing out that Anderson’s 4 wickets in the first innings there were pretty cheap given they only came after Australia had got to 550. It’s worth noting that while Cook averages a respectable enough 36 against Australia, take out the one golden series and its about 28
My bad, yes they were in the first session at Perth and 2nd session in Adelaide.
I still suspect that why the drinks on head thing turned from acceptable fun into not fun was to do with a poor choice of cranial receipient. Others doing the same did it to people who laughed it off Jimmy didn’t and hostile words ensued and the security intervened. Not much of an incident but would explain why security jumped in then.
Something that deserves some consideration is what happens to YJB if/when Stokes returns.
If I recall correctly, he batted at 7 during the most recent English summer. In my view, he has done more than enough to merit a place in the top 6.
However, with Root entrenched at 4 and Malan deserving of a continued run at 5, I fear Bairstow will be moved back to 7 as soon as Stokes returns.
Probably right. However, it worked in England last summer, and (on my suggestions) you’d have Ali, Overton and Woakes coming in after him, which is not exactly a tail.
Is it a bowling attack though?
Ahh…. Yes of course.
Useful lower order runs.
Fancy trailing through the scorecards for examples of lower order runs in Australia??
Firstly, when he’s available, Stokes gets back in the team. Of the batsmen, the newer players, Stoneman, Vince and Malan have (to my mind) shown enough on this tour to suggest they can offer something going forward. Root is a fine player, but the captaincy seems to be sending him backwards (both Vince and Malan have captained their counties, which is more than Root did: I wouldn’t promote Stokes, for reasons involving Andrew Flintoff and Ian Botham).
So that leaves Cook. This might be a dip in form, or a permanent decline, and the last 2-3 years suggests it’s permanent. As you say, Cook is notably worse against South Africa and Australia (who have top class proper fast bowlers bowling on helpful pitches) than other nations. However, I suspect Cook is not the only international opener with those stats. Happily there are two possible contenders for opener: Jennings and Hameed.
As all rounders, Stokes, Bairstow and Moeen work together. Moeen’s “luxury” status has been exposed without Stokes. Then we come to the bowlers. I’m with you on Overton, and I’d keep Woakes (who I think is not 100% fit). Anderson has (by and large) done well enough on this tour to continue (I think he’ll retire after the 2019 Ashes, which, bizarrely, is straight after the world cup).
To summarise:
Cook and Broad to go, Root to give up the captaincy.
Since it’s the time of year for wishes, a complete overhaul of the selectors and the English domestic game would be nice. And more unicorns.
I can’t agree about Jennings. If Cook has a flawed technique, I wouldn’t know how to start to describe Jennings’s.
The squad is exposed for what it is – no realistic alternative for a player woefully out of form. I can’t imagine that anyone from the squad put in to open would do any better than Cook; on the other hand, any substitute could hardly do any worse!
Nowt wrong with Jenning’s technique to my eye…
England certainly cannot afford to have a guy like Anderson who clearly considers himself immune from his captain’s control. So bye bye Jimmy. I’m sure you can find plenty of bars where guys will be willing to pour beer over you. Broady is past his sell-by date. The good times were indeed good but they’re no more. Time to take up modelling Stuey.
Cookie – the way it works in most companies is that you sit down with your boss and agree a departure date. Go, while you have some dignity left. Next month’s spring lambs will probably appreciate your being around. Mo – events at New Road mean you could be of help over here for a few months.
Bayliss doesn’t have the answers. Well I have – be off Trevor, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.
That’ll do for starters,
I see that you mention ‘upgrading our team for a younger model’….but you don’t give any names. Why this constant demand for yoof? Malan has exceeded expectations and he is no spring chicken…..and , of course, we gloss over the fact that Australia over-rely on Smith (and to a lesser extent, Warner), yet three of their most consistent players over thelast decade were Hussey, Rogers and Voges, all over thirty on debut. Before we demand, once again, to have a team of 21 year olds, shouldn’t we consider who might be best for the role irrespective of age?
Oh, and I wish you hadn’t included that link to Mail onLine , or I wish that I hadn’t followed it. It’s awful.
I should point out that I’d don’t read The Mail. I just googled ‘Nathan Lyon girlfriend’ and that article had the best picture of her!
“When Bayliss was appointed, I originally hoped that he’d immerse himself in our domestic game (when time permitted) and identify young players with potential like Duncan Fletcher used to do. Perhaps there were some diamonds in the rough like Marcus Trescothick to unearth?”
The thing is though… Fletcher’s opinion of Trescothick (and Vaughan) was based on his time before becoming England coach. For instance, Tresco scored a big ton against Glamorgan when Fletch was their head coach.
When he was England coach, did he really have time to remain immersed in the county game?
This was that game:
http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1999/ENG_LOCAL/CC/R18/SOMERSET_GLAM_CC_02-05SEP1999.html
Tres had been a success for the U19s so he wasn’t quite as much of a left-field pick as people sometimes say.
I absolutely agree with everything that has been said here, so far. I’d just like to ask; what do they actually do at Loughborough?
Iron out individuality ?
With the Ashes so humiliatingly surrendered after just three Tests, England’s eight straight Test loss in Australia, why not ring a few changes for the final two matches ? No one would then blame any newcomers if they struggled a bit, but given that Malan, Stoneman, Overton and even Vince have done better than perhaps expected, some more new blood might be what the team needs.
Crane may be inexperienced, but NSW must have seen something they liked to pluck him from club cricket down under. He could be given a try, Malan could bowl some more overs, plus Root’s occasional off spin and Moeen could be rested, given that he is probably injured anyway. I’d rather Foakes be brought in as a batsman than Ballance. Not sure where you’d put him and who would open with Stoneman. Cooks needs a break. However, the powers that be will do none of this, and I suspect the only change would involve Overton if his rib injury doesn’t get any better. Shame, as he has done quite well.
For too long, relatively easy wins at home over weakish teams have papered over the cracks. For several years now, we have witnessed regular top order collapses, sometimes rescued by Stokes, Bairstow and Moeen. No one has a right to win matches overseas, but where’s the fight ? Some senior players just don’t seem to care. Still cannot understand why, more than once, Anderson was taken off after a few overs or not brought on when Smith came in at Perth. At Brisbane, Aus were 7 wickets down and Anderson was taken off after just two or three overs having taken wickets. Just don’t get it. Bayliss didn’t even see that incident. I do feel we need a new coach for next summer in England.
“I suspect the only change would involve Overton if his rib injury doesn’t get any better”.
Overton didn’t have a scan between the Second and Third Tests and was only sent for a scan when injured again. The doctor then told him that if he landed on it wrongly he could fracture the rib or even puncture a lung. He still isn’t ruled out of the MCG game. It’s difficult to believe England’s medical regime sometimes.
He’s ruled himself out.
Hoping for the last test or New Zealand.
They handled Pietersen’s knee problems in a similarly cavalier fashion, I seem to remember.
Setting up an utterly inexperienced spinner for a tonking, in what must be a fairly demoralised team, on the off chance that he might just defy the odds seems utterly irresponsible… “no one will blame the newcomers” could only have been written by someone who never reads our or Australia’s press.
For me, Bayliss & Broad, to go.
Cook & Anderson to stay, we don’t have anyone better at present.
The game needs restructuring. There is no point sacking player or coaches until that happens. If you do, you’ll just get the same #### but a different name..
Cook has never been as good as most fans have said but he’s still better than anyone else. Stoneman will not avg 40mark my words.
Root.. has never been capt material and I said as much. However, most fans again declare him world class and he would go on to compete with Williamson, kohli and smith. I think people need to relaide he’s a number 4/5 batter with flaws rather than a world class top order bat.
Stokes.. I see people still believe he’s the messiah.. the second coming .. the man to score tons and take five fors.. sorry to disappoint but look at his averages people.. look at his consistency and most of all… why on earth do you think someone with a bad record in discipline makes for a good capt or vc!!
Culture… the culture around professional Cricket and England is toxic and ego driven. That needs stripping back and players reminding that it’s a priveledge to play for the country, not a right. Buy into being a top pro etc or bog off… if that means they are dumped from the game by the county then so be it.. Stokes needs to buck up and act his age and stop going out and getting leathered for example, it’s not needed by a top professional.. leave that to the weekend warriors .
Bayliss and co.. again, needs a total over haul and that includes all coaches and ecb and local board staff.. as well as county coaches . All have utterly failed .. theynare coaching spinner to chuck and batsmen to be unable to be technically and mentally able to pay test cricket .
Moeen.. fire him and never waste another penny on him. The fact he bats top six in county Cricket says loads about the state of our game.. gutless wafter..
I agree with everything in this article. Except the Vegemite comment.
I think it’s time for England teams to take the role of vice captain more seriously. I realise that winning sides tend to be more harmonious, but it is telling how often smith consults with Warner, Paine and Lyon on the field. Root seems to make every decision on his own. As others have said here, he’s been let down a little by his senior players.
Australian fast bowlers grow up eating Vegemite. English “fast” bowlers grow up eating Marmite. No point, just saying. (seriously, Vegemite rocks)
Bayliss’ press conference was pretty bad. I can forgive him though.
What do you expect a coach to say after three of his senior bowlers get two wickets in 110 overs? I know what I’d be saying behind closed doors but in a presser he’s in a very difficult situation.
Farbrace’s was far worse.
“We haven’t learned anything from today that we didn’t already know”
Quite. So by picking and playing bowlers without the necessary pace or guile and a spinner who we know isn’t going to be useful the expected outcome was what? One can only presume that they’d work hard and not be embarrassed rather than actually having a chance at winning.
In other words that the ECB and coaching staff wouldn’t be embarrassed.
How’s that working out for them do we think?
“The majority of our ways to take wickets has been with monotonous line and length”
???!
Which test matches was he watching? Clearly our bowlers have been told to bowl too short, to waste the new ball and they didn’t even execute this well. Could someone please disagree with me, could someone point to a passage of play where Woakes or Broad bowled monotonous line and length? It didn’t seem as though they could bowl three overs at a time in the right areas. Jimmy certainly did at times though asking your strike bowler to bowl dry because the idiot at the other end is leaking and can’t bowl to a field is ridiculous.
When’s the last time we went to Oz with a bowler who can get useful lower order runs, and they have? There’s a clue in the way Australia pick their teams, almost always 4 bowlers and if they can’t bat then so what. Many have learned over long careers but very few seem to have been picked ahead of a better bowler because of a slightly better batting average. You need specialists in Australia and if one happens to be good enough with the bat to be a genuine allrounder then great. If not then for god’s sake stop wittering on about lengthening the tail.
Similarly though why do we think medium fast bowlers are going run through the Australian tail? Their bowlers probably face faster and more aggressive bowling in Sheffield Shield games. If Woakes, Broad and Ali couldn’t get Cummings out in Brisbane then why did de management think they wold be effective thereafter?
Other than the bowling the only two players I’d pick out and drop would be Vince and Ali. Ali is good enough but he’s shot. I have some sympathy for his previous dismissals as he was trying to get on top of the bowling, which is his job down the order. His bowling just isn’t good enough in Australia and it’s affected his confidence I think. He’s got plenty of runs to come, but not on this tour.
How can you reserve judgement on Vince? It sickened me to hear every commentator cooing over his covers drives. To me it proved he isn’t test class. They were lovely though just because he was middling the ball doesn’t mean he was playing the right shots. If England had been 200 ahead then great, but we were batting to save the test. Leave the buggers. Yeah he got an unplayable ball after a very good looking fifty but he’s a number 3 and the situation called for occupying the crease. He plays the ball too early, it doesn’t take a genius to devise a bowling plan for him and he makes me feel as though he’s a carefree 7. I have nothing against an aggressive 3, though should be by taking the short ball on. Playing early at a newish ball is brainless and I’d far rather see an adhesive opener in at 3.
In fact I think Cook would be ideal. He’s got lots of big scores left in him though would benefit from someone else taking the shine off first. Not on this tour though, as we didn’t bring a single spare opening bat.
Just to put your “specialists” comment in perspective, Pat Cummins has so far scored more runs in 4 innings in this series (138), with one not out than Ali, Woakes or Cook in 6 innings (0 not outs) His series average (46) is higher than all England batsmen except Malan.
To be fair, I think this largely reinforces your point that we can’t get their tail out.
In the end, the reason I left Guardian BTL was because my wife caught me in the middle of a huge row about Ben Stokes, and looked at my posting history and pointed out things I’d said, about other topics, that would get me into trouble with my present employer (HMG).
But what got me into the row is still true. Moeen Ali and Ben Stokes can’t both fit in the Test side. Not the best test side. Neither is one of the best 6 batsmen in England (some say Stokes is, but I disagree), nor the best 4 bowlers. So far as I know, neither keeps wicket. Plus we already have another all-rounder, in YJB.
Either would make a fine number 7 (given that YJB keeps and bats no lower than 6). But if you have an all rounder capable of match-winning spells with bat and ball at 7, then 8, 9, 10 and 11 should be your best bowlers. Ali cannot be our first choice spinner. Heroics against the Saffers in the summer don’t hide the fact that in most series (home and away), he averages over 40 with the ball.
In most series outside of England, the team with the best spinner wins the series. We won’t win series in Australia, India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka with Ali as our main spinner.
So it’s Stokes or Ali, I’m afraid. You can’t have both.
On the other points, Cook should bat at 3, I’m unconvinced by Vince (if it turns out he’s the ideal batsman for Australian decks and is useless when there’s any sideways movement he’s hardly the ideal number 3 for /England/), Robson/Burns/Hameed/Browne should open with Stoneman, Anderson stays (but he doesn’t make the next Ashes tour, so we need to build for the future), Broad isn’t finished (I hope) but needs some time away from the game, and I don’t believe that Chris Woakes will ever be the answer, but I fear he’ll be persisted with.
Jack Leach should be looked at, Jamie Overton fixed up, Rashid rehabilitated and Stokes fined by the Mags, given a rap on the knuckles and come back to the side when suitable penitence has been shown.
Oh, and Bluffboro should be razed to the ground.
You aren’t wrong.
I’m not convinced by Leach. He’s a very English spinner, very consistent and just the sort of chap to tie an end up. I think you need more in Australia. Rashid has offended the senses apparently by going against his coaches wishes. I’m not sure a player telling coaches to bugger off is seen as a bad thing outside of the ECB bubble!
The Lions have gone home after playing a few T20 thrashes though so no Gubbins / Jennings / Livingstone available.
In principle I agree. Stokes and Ali are basically competing for that no 7 bat/fifth bowler spot. Neither are good enough to get in the team for either batting or bowling alone.
With both of them in the team we have 2 no 7 bats and 2 fifth bowlers. Depending on how we organise the rest of the team, that leaves us with either a weak batting line up or a weak bowling attack.
However, currently, they’re still two of our best 11 cricketers*, so there’s not much we can really do. It would be silly to leave them out on principle.
*Stokes undoubtedly is, Ali has been shite this winter but I’m willing to buy the excuse that he is playing injured… just…
“Breaking Up Is Hard To Do”.
Well maybe, but it’s long overdue here isn’t it. Really does Cook and Anderson etc decide when their ready to go? Bullshit. You cannot keep playing people based on past reputations. Broad and Cook haven’t performed for months, not just in this shambolic mess of a series. Moen is hopeless outside of the UK, Woakes has not played enough cricket in the last year and is way out of form as a batter or bowler at the moment. To be honest I think even Root should be rested, he’s shot if you saw him interviewed after the match, looked like Kim Hughes in ’81. And Jimmy is 35 and is beginning to look it.
When you go to Aussie of all places everyone has to be 100%. Ball, Moen, Broad and I think Anderson were all carrying injuries (Root took him off after 2 overs in the previous match because he was in pain). Wood is still not fully fit and Overton is a doubt for Melbourne.
OK so the cupboard hadn’t got much in it. The last warm up game did’nt highlight anyone really knocking on the door. As much discussed already the whole of English cricket management from the ECB down are largely responsible for this, and Christ the bloody coach doesn’t even watch County cricket!
But back to this thread; we’ve lost the Ashes spectacularly. So what’s wrong with giving some youngster’s who will be very keen to impress a go? After all Malan, Stoneman and to a lesser extent Vince and Overton hand all showed promise ad scored more runs than the old hands.
For what its worth what about this for a 14 man squad:
Hameed, Stoneman, Root, Vince, Livingstone, Bairstow, Malan, Foakes, Curran, Overton, Crane, Anderson, Wood, Plunkett (if fit).
I’m not an expert so I don’t really know what combination of these would play. BUT Foakes should keep because he’s the best wicketkeeper in county cricket and Bairstow bats at 5. Root or Livingstone at 3 and Vince at 4 because he’s not a number 3 and bats at 4 for his county.
I expect though all they will do is replace Overton.
So … Woakes.
Before the tour I was all like “He’s a medium-fast swing bowler” and everyone was like “nah, nah, nah, he’s our quickest bowler and he’s all that”.
Now “He’s not fit”.
Is he not fit? Or is it that he’s just not very good? 15 wickets in 10 overseas Tests at 58 tells its own story.
I don’t doubt he’ll pick up stacks of wickets in England. India? SA? Sri Lanka? Even Windies? Let alone the next Ashes.
But….
He can get useful lower order runs!
He is our quickest bowler – look at who has produced the majority of England balls over 87mph in this series. The problem (or one problem) is that 87/88 is not the 90+ of the Australian attack and Woakes at his fastest has only got to 91/92 (and not in Australia). What this says, rather than Woakes being an issue, is that our other bowlers are only medium quick. Anderson, Broad and Overton are typically bowling at 81/82. Whilst this is less of an issue for Anderson with his control it is a much bigger issue for the other two. Broad is toothless at this pace and (putting my neck on the line) so is Overton. So far he has benefited from lack of familiarity by batsmen and bounce from his height – but I doubt his prospects (hope I am wrong).
Regrettably we have to make the best of what we have. Garton is interesting but not ready. Curran makes even Anderson look quick. Only Wood offers genuine pace – and how long will he last? I would risk Wood in place of Broad, but see few other options.
The same comments can be made about our spinners. We must play a spinner, but who is the better alternative to Moeen? Unlike most on this thread I would keep Moeen. He is not test standard (in most conditions) but there is no obvious challenger. Rashid bowls one gimmee an over. Crane could not buy a Championship wicket in 2017. Dawson…….is Dawson. Perhaps there is an alternative coming up but, if so, they are not yet compelling, although I would like to see Leach tried.
It is all very well to complain and propose to drop players, but that imposes a duty to say who are better alternatives. For completeness I will give my preferred changes. I like the idea of Cook at no3 and would drop Vince and bring in Hameed to open, because class and technique persist whilst form is transient. Broad must go. I feel sorry for him as I am sure he is not fit, but his problem is chronic and will not get better. Short term Wood to replace him. Finally, Root to concentrate on his batting – which means we need a new captain. There are 3 candidates; Cook – who would be a step back. Woakes – as the only new candidate with successful England captaincy experience, with the Lions. Or Moeen – who has, at least, impressed with his management of the media and seems to have the character to stand up to idiot coaches. I would be happy with either of the last two.
Andy even Woakes Mum probably doesn’t think he’s good enough to bowl in Australia.
88 runs and 7 wickets for 365. It’s crap Colin, the usual bits and pieces all rounder we traditionally take to Australia and then gawp in amazement when they get hammered.
You failed (as is rather usual) to answer the points made. The analysis clearly shows him to be our fastest bowler. He has (as I have pointed out before without contradiction) been instructed to play the role of the back of the length banger with the old ball (except for a period at Adelaide). I suspect Woakes is still getting back to his old self given his lack of FC cricket in 2017, but no bowler will do well when asked to play an unsuited role against top batsmen. Broad, with the benefit of the new ball, has far worse figures. Ball looked dreadful in his one test. Someone (I forget who) suggested Ball is our fastest bowler when the stats suggest he is another of the 82mph brigade.
You rather remind me of Lord Boycott of Flat Earth, who said Woakes was so slow that his old mom could play him – directly after the Sky speed gun (this was a few years back) showed him at 88mph. Who would you pick? Porter or Curran, who barely get to 80mph? Liam Plunkett, who is no faster than Woakes these days and gets little movement? Ball, Willey or Gurney (or Meaker) – one of those tried without success? Or a wholly untried player with little FC experience? The only realistic option is Wood, and he comes in for Broad.
Where is the analysis that shows how fast Woakes is bowling?
So far as I can see, cricinfo no longer has Hawkeye.
Cricviz blogging on Woakes suggests he’d bowled (a) too short and (b) without much control.
But I can find nowt on speeds.
There was an analysis in one of the broadsheets. Whilst I cannot find the original I was thinking of, if you look at the Telegraph of 16 December you will find an analysis of the average speeds of all the bowlers which confirms Woakes as the fastest and only one averaging over 85mph. And of course he has bowled too short. Unless the cricket journo’s have got it wrong he has been told to do so by the coaches and Root (who seems to be there only to parrot the coaches plans even when they go wrong. You are making the same point as me – that he is being asked to do a job to which he is unsuited, which is more a condemnation of the coaches and captain than the bowler. Would they ask Anderson to ‘bang it in short with the old ball’?
Andy he isn’t fast. Fastest of a not fast bunch… Maybe. Marginally. Irrelevantly.
If he’s swung a ball then I’ve missed it. If he’s seamed a ball then it wasn’t much. He’s showed an inability to bowl to a field or consistently. He’s looked like cannon fodder and his figures reflect that.
Woakes is not going to get wickets against Australia unless they make the next two tests day nighters.
Or unless they give him the new ball – which is the only time you get a kookaburra to swing (and I am not anti-kookaburra as I use their bats and pads, but their ball is awful).
As previously discussed he has had the new ball, just not in the first or second over.
Didn’t do anything with it.
I’d rather risk Rashid, and a few loose deliveries, than stick with what we’ve got.
Or try Bess, Leach or even bloody Crane, if he’s all that.
Rashid was the highest wicket taker for England in the series against India. He is a wrist spinner, wrist spinners are not containing bowlers, they can be expensive but you need somebody who takes wickets, and the current England bowling lineup doesn’t seem to have anyone who can do that.
I think, in summary, we are suggesting (I think) that if Woakes took the new ball, and actually aimed at the top of off-stump, he’d almost certainly be more effective than he’s been so far, and might well be more effective (as a new ball bowler) than Anderson or Broad.
Agreed (although I would still put him second to Anderson).
To quote the lovely Melinda Farrell..
“Australia are going to be terrified of coming out to face Woakes with the third new ball”.
Lol.
Just name the better alternative. Anyone can criticise. Credibility comes from providing answers.
Mason Crane.
It seems to me that overthinking has been a key issue with selection in this country as long as I can remember, hence the lack of consistency. There are certain basic rules that most other countries seem to follow but we vacillate with. The prime being selecting players out of position. This applies to batsmen and bowlers. Play players in their county positions. Poor old Jake Ball had to make do with 4th seamer, using a less than pristine ball. No wonder he struggled. He is our fastest bowler and should be opening with the hard ball if he’s going to be selected. James Vince is not a number 3, which requires specialised adaptability. He is a talented but one dimensional middle order batsman, so play him there. Success in Test Cricket requires master craftsmen not jack of all trades. Surely we’ve selected enough bits and pieces cricketers over the years to learn this. Hence the need for more specialist coaching for young players.
The next is trying to get a balance, so you have the resources to operate a plan B. Ideally this should involve 4 front line seamers, including an all rounder if available. At least 3 of these should be looking to take wickets, ideally with a couple also able to prop up an end on unhelpful tracks, along with a specialist wicket oriented spinner. You have to bowl a side out twice to win, so you need to have some realistic ammunition. As far as the batting is concerned you need a couple of defensive minded characters at the top of the order who’s job is to see off the new ball and build the foundations for the stroke-makers to take the initiative.
Another bugbear is picking players with fitness issues for gruelling 5 test series. This means match fitness. We have seen on this tour both Broad and Woakes struggling to find their rhythm. No player should be seen as indispensable, with preferential allowances being made because of their previous. A 5 day test will surely find them out.
Picking what you believe are the best 11 players doesn’t make the best team. The exception to this selection process should be the wicket keeper. Pick the best keeper first. It’s a defensive move to prefer a batsman keeper.
You need a plan to process a team into, not selection first and then plan. When you go abroad as cricketers do regularly, spending half their working life trying to adapt to new conditions, the plan must be paramount. Players should be selected who best fit the plan, not who’ve had most success in the last domestic season. Leave that for the white ball game. You have to cater to the conditions and players you will be facing, to give yourself the best chance.
The above are just basic rules that have been observed a long time. We seem to have fallen into the modern trend of analysing things into the ground. We just end up in a confused mess, clarity of thought being at a premium. If we give ourselves a logical framework to work in, things become more structured and choices easier, guided by that framework.
In almost every field of endeavour, a structured plan guides the protagonists.
“Overthinking…”
Agreed – which was why Gillespie would have been a far better choice than Bayliss.
No bullshit, and seems to have a keen and uncluttered cricket brain.
Get rid of the back room staff, scrap central contracts, expect potential test players to play in the county game and select those who are in form (ie no more sinecures) – just as used to be done. In the interim there are two “dead” matches coming up – a chance to blood any number of possibles.
For those interested in such matters (which seems to be most of us judging by the comments) there is an interesting paper at arxiv (the home of research papers) on the topic of how important bowling speed is in predicting bowling performance. Not surprisingly it is written by mathematicians from the Indian Institute of Technology. Whilst you do need a stats background to follow the maths it is quite possible to read the abstract and conclusions with no maths. Just google ‘a statistical analysis of bowling performance in cricket’ and the paper will appear at the top of the search. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that there is no statistically significant difference between fast and fast medium bowlers against top order batsmen (that is not the case against the lower order).
Interesting reasearch would be good to see this broken up by country/ surface. I saw some other (more rudimentary) analysis that suggested that in England there is no advantage to bowling fast, where as in Australia there was. While we would have to draw our own conclusions it would seem to be that the loss in line and length outweighs the benefits of additional speed.
Certainly the experience in this series is that wickets 5-10 fall way faster with a fast attack.
An interesting interview with Nasser the other day re the future role of county cricket in providing more effective test cricketers. He suggests we play the white ball game at the beginning and end of the season and in June, July and August concentrate on the county championship, when the weather is better and wickets are wickets harder. This allows batsmen more opportunity to bat for longer periods and bowlers have to work harder for their wickets, thus better addressing the two major issues preventing England from winning tests abroad.
If one member of the playing establishment thinks like this, how many more ex players could do likewise and put their oar into the ECB white ball obsessional thinking? They have the media coverage made to measure for this, as most of them work for Sky. It amazes me why we don’t hear more interviews like this. There just seems to be an air of resigned inevitability over the way things are going, with very little high profile challenge to the prevailing culture of you can’t have it both ways; if you want success at home, to attract crowds and sponsors, you prepare wickets to suit English type seam and swing, making it difficult for the opposition, even though this scuppers your chances of producing the necessary skills to play conditions abroad, where the ball does less and you need pace and batsmen who can play it.
Hi Marc. I think 99% of ex-players and supporters would agree with Nasser. The problem, of course, is that whilst producing a competitive test side is Nasser and the fans’ priority, the ECB have a very different priority: making money from white ball cricket.
Naturally the ECB would argue that we need this money to keep the game alive. However, considering they’ve made no effort to try to market the championship properly, plus the fact that a large proportion of ECB revenue comes from England gate and TV revenue anyway, I think they’re being disingenuous and they could (with a bit of effort and imagination) do more to promote and protect first class cricket.
I’ve always thought that chasing white ball money isn’t necessary, it’s just the easiest way to raise money … and that’s it’s appeal to the authorities. Promoting first class cricket is a harder sell but it should be possible. After all, it’s the product that counts and first class cricket is a superior game to T20 … if people are willing to give it a chance.
It’s up to the ECB to convince people that first class cricket is great. Instead they seem to have given up, using the assumption that people are too lazy / busy / stupid these days to appreciate the finer things in life as justification. I passionately disagree that this is the case of course. People still have the ability to concentrate if something is compelling enough. The new Star Wards film is 160 minutes long! Things aren’t necessarily getting shorter all the time.
The two aren’t incompatible, though the ECB seems to insist that they are.
I’ve mentioned previously about having two teams for white ball and red ball, the main draw is the two overseas stars in most cases for T20. Both playing at the same time
What of women’s cricket though? I genuinely like it. Seems purer somehow compared to the brute power on display in the men’s game. Why is there no first class 4 day women’s league?
As for marketing some games market themselves. I remember playing at a ground in Wales and being told that Glamorgan used to play there. Which was impressive, in memory terms at least as the last match was 1963.
Aberystwyth too, even people who had no interest in cricket had very fond and hazy memories of the first class game ( or more correctly the beer tent) against Warwickshire fifteen years later. There hasn’t been a fixture there since 1989.
The answer is more cricket not less, if that means using the second, third or other grounds then fine, especially if T20 or WT20 gets more people into the larger stadiums. If that means 2nd XI or league players getting a game every now and then even better.
Television and the money it brings is important here but how much of the £200m a year paid by the BBC and Sky do we think is actually for the county championship games? If you put the home test matches and internationals up for sale alone how much less than £200m do you think you would get?
Outside of tests and T20 Sky has no interest in county cricket. It’s there as a filler, been packaged and sold off as a you have to have this as well. And frankly I think the counties are being ripped off. Yes the ECB gives them a couple of million a year to keep them afloat but what are they giving up?
Who sponsors your local county? Who takes out advertising at rather derisory rates? My guess is that other than a smattering or corporates it’s mainly quite local companies. They don’t do this because Sky might broadcast one of their county championship games a year, so that someone in London can see Little Piddle on the Wold’s mackerel supplier’s emblem. Cricket is fundamentally a more local thing.
Little Piddle on the Wold’s third XI 2nd change 15 yr old seamer doesn’t hope that one day Surrey might come calling for him, he wants to play for his county in general, if that is a scout ever calls… I’ve only ever seen one.
Test cricket and the international team is effectively the counties’ product. which if we accept that the county game is worth nothing to Sky means that it is worth about £12 million per county per year. And they not just get only £2m back but also relinquish the ability to market their own TV rights.
The model might have made sense back in the days of 4 TV channels, now that there’s hundreds of them clearly struggling for content I find it hard to believe that the county game is as worthless as the ECB makes out. Especially with catch up TV, internet highlights and interaction or updates through social media.
All of which could be monetised if the ECB actually believed in the game it administrates.
Cook’s time is up and I guess he already knows this but the problem is that who could replace him at the top?