Boy we needed that win at Old Trafford. It means England have now won two tests this summer and lost two. It’s not exactly time to crack open the Bollinger (maybe the Babycham?) but things are a damn sight better than they were two weeks ago, when English cricket was tottering on the brink of the abyss.
What’s more, the decisive nature of the victory – and they don’t get much more decisive than an innings victory inside three days – means there’s finally a glimmer of hope for English cricket. This might be a small glimmer – a teeny spark rather than an eyeball full of beaming bright light – but it’s progress nevertheless. Although India have been dreadful, England can only beat what’s in front of them (even if it’s a motley crew that gave up after half an hour).
The best thing about England’s performance is that we finally something different to write about. Is Ballance the new Trott? Will the bloody predictive text feature on my iPhone ever stop removing the extra ‘L’ in Balance? Has Root finally found his niche at five? I think the answers are yes, no and yes.
The big question, however, is whether England’s new team have shown enough to suggest they’ll be competitive in next summer’s Ashes (the only contest that really matters). At the moment, I can say with great confidence that the answer is “err, maybe”.
Let’s get this straight. Beating India at home is great – especially after all the fuss they made when Anderson aggressively nudged his handbag into Jadeja’s heavy bat – but beating the subcontinental teams is the minimum we should expect at home.
England beat teams like India 99% of the time on home soil. The only recent aberration was the abysmal defeat to Sri Lanka a few weeks ago. Therefore the wins at Southampton and Manchester don’t actually mean a great deal – especially if we get hammered in the Ashes again in 2015.
On the other hand, if we do somehow wrestle the urn back from the baggy green hordes next year, the wins will be rightly perceived as some kind of significant turning point.
I’ve seen several contrasting views on this topic. My TFT colleague Maxie has argued eloquently and emotively that beating India actually diminishes our chances of winning back the Ashes next year. The theory, of course, is that these relatively straightforward victories are entrenching Cook’s position as skipper. Maxie believes, like many of those who are disillusioned with English cricket, that we’ll have a greater chance of Ashes revenge if someone else is captain (Bell, Root, Broad or whoever).
I can kind of see what Maxie means. The implication is that Michael Clarke has the wood over Cook, and a skipper who merely does the basics well (which is something Alastair did well at Old Trafford) won’t be enough next year. In order to beat the Aussies, the argument goes, we’ll need a more creative and dynamic leader.
While part of me agrees Maxie – it sure beats the mainstream media’s view that all in the garden is now rosy, and Cook is forevermore the man to lead England’s burgeoning juggernaut (whilst also being the most deserving, intelligent and handsome man in world cricket) – but there’s surely too much doubt to jump to this conclusion with certainty.
For starters, who’s to say that Cook isn’t improving as a captain? Yes he’s been bloody terrible in the past, but he’s a determined bloke and nobody really knows what his ceiling is. He’s managed to score 8,000 test runs with a pretty dodgy technique, so maybe he’s some kind of miracle worker after all.
Secondly, we shouldn’t underestimate how difficult it is for teams to break losing habits. England surely stand a better chance of winning the Ashes in 2015 if we can pick up some wins in 2014. If we lost every test this year confidence would be at an all time low. How would a new skipper be able to coax better performances (both individually and collectively) from a side that’s totally forgotten how to play well and win?
Although Darren Lehmann managed to reverse Australia’s fortunes in a short space of time last year, it still look him five test matches (a series they lost 0-3) to turn results around. Consequently, I believe England have more chance of competing well next summer if they can beat India in this series (and beat them well). It would be mission impossible if we started 2015 with an entirely new captain and a pool of players who have only ever tasted defeat.
Having said that, I agree with Maxie that a series win against India might give everyone false hope. Let’s face it, India have made it ridiculously easy for England with poor selection and embarrassing capitulations; I’ve seen more fight in a stoned teenager.
England, and Cook the batsman in particular, have also benefitted from the injury to Ishant Sharma. Not one of India’s seamers would make Australia’s B-team. Their bowling has looked about as threatening as the cast of the Inbetweeners.
What’s more, although the likes of Derek Pringle have predictably credited Cook with galvanising the team (he was unable to do this for ten test matches but has now apparently metamorphosed into some kind of Mr Motivator) there is a far more obvious reason why England have started playing well again.
For the first half of the summer England had as much backbone as an octopus. The team looked lost and rumours began to circulate about Moores’ coaching methods yet again. Then India reported Anderson to the ICC and everything began to change. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was unadulterated anger that fired up and united the England team. Dhoni basically did Cook’s team talks for him.
Meanwhile it’s surely no coincidence that the incident coincided with India’s loss of focus and intensity. They seemed to take their eye off the ball and got distracted, then disenchanted, at the outcome of a charge that looks utterly frivolous in hingsight.
India now look like a mentally defeated rabble – a sad sight considering they boast so many talented young batsmen – and an England win at The Oval looks probable if not certain. The cricket betting certainly reflects this: Betfair have an England win at 6/5, whereas India are big underdogs at 9/2.
However, this hasn’t stopped Pringle from arguing that this upcoming Oval test is the greatest challenge yet for Cook’s new team. A cynic might suggest he’s deliberately bigging up the game so he can be even more effusive in his praise of Cook when England canter to victory. I can see the headlines now: “Cook Beats India, Ends World Hunger, Cures Cancer, Makes Middel-Aged Journalist Swoon”.
The logic behind Pringle’s argument is that Oval pitches have been slow turners this year – just the kind of wickets, apparently, that India love and England hate. Obviously he’s forgotten that England won in India recently, the leading spinner in the series thus far has been Moeen Ali, and India’s top order actually have a terrible record against off spin in recent series (strange but true). Furthermore, Cook is probably the best player of spin on either side.
Talking of spinners, news broke yesterday that Saeed Ajmal was reported for an illegal action in Sri Lanka’s recent victory over Pakistan. Whilst one feels a little sorry for Ajmal – who has presumably been bowling with the same action throughout his career – I’m glad the ICC are finally doing something about chuckers in world cricket. It also seems unfair that Sri Lanka are making do without Senanayake, while Ajmal is allowed to carry on regardless.
As a Worcestershire man, I have mixed feelings about Saeed. While he’s been instrumental in the county’s success this season, and given Moeen some useful tips, I couldn’t help but cringe on the occasions I’ve seen him bowl live. His orthodox off spinner looks just about ok, but his variations look terrible from a distance. There can’t be one rule for Senanayake and Kane Williamson (both of whom were rightly reported in my opinion) and another for someone else.
My only disappointment is that the umpires who reported Ajmal were Ian Gould and Bruce Oxenfold (an Englishman and an Aussie). How long before the accusations of racism begin to fly?
Anyway, I digress. I want to talk about England not Pakistan or politics. Have you seen enough, like Pringle, to suggest that England are making giant strides? Can this bunch of new players really challenge Australia next summer?
Or will further victories against India’s motley crew simply paper over the cracks – fault lines that will inevitably be exposed as gaping chasms once Captain Cook’s sturdy old vessel hits stormier waters next year?
And if so – and whisper it quietly – is it better for England lose at the Oval if miserable defeat brings a new captain, and fresh ideas, for 2015? it’s an extreme view, but there must be people out there who share it.
James Morgan
Written in collaboration with Betfair
Thoughtful, well written piece as ever James.
If you’re in the anti Cook camp then (whisper it quietly) defeat might be the way to go, but what would defeat to the squad, this is a young talented team that need confidence to grow and get better.
After the oval there is a world cup and another couple of test series before the ashes, a hell of a lot can happen in that time.
What I hope for is for another strong team performance that takes us into the winter and a good world cup.
This young team needs confidence and spirit, not chopping and changing.
Clarke had the wood on Cook because we kept getting out to Mitchell Johnson & Ryan Harris, and Brad Haddin counter attacked brilliantly.
They have a huge Australian summer ahead of them, those 3 might not even take to the welsh turf next July.
There’s a very good chance that we might have a winning, settled side by then and they are worrying about us.
In the same way that KP will never play for England again, Cook WILL lead England into the Ashes next year whatever the result at the Oval. That is why there has been such triumphalism from the media. Their boy keeps his job for another year. The only circumstance that could change, is if Cook decided to stand down. He won’t be sacked now.
It’s one of the things that pisses me off about the coverage since the win at OT is a suspicion that the ECB/media is more delighted that Cook is keeping his job than England are winning. The Oval test match is an irrelevance as far as England’s long term future. Even if India were to win (very unlikely now) team England or is that team Cook/Moores will stay in place. Time will tell if that is the right decision.
A more interesting question now I think is what happens about the one day team? Will Cook be captain, and should he even be opening the batting? In a bizarre turn of fate , Cook may now feel with his test job secure he might take the winter off. Next year the idiotic ECB have organised 17 test matches in 9 months. I’m not being over dramatic, but both Anderson and Broads careers may be destroyed by the end of this. Particularly if Cook has to keep going back to the well for one more spell after another.
No doubt we will be reminded about 2011 and Cooks finest hour as justification for him playing in the world cup. But is his form really up to it at the moment? And is his captaincy dynamic enough? Of course Cook could stand aside and be portrayed by Pringle as the most selfless captain of all time. Standing aside for the good of his country, Jerusalem will play in the background.
What England need is for Cook to be our finest batsman next summer , Broad and Anderson to be firing on all cylinders and be ready for the onslaught from a boyant Aussies ( it is ironic that predicative text for boyant was botany , the convicts are coming )
In my opinion all 3 should have the winter off .
we are not going to win the World Cup anyway down under and I believe that to send some of the young guns will be useful in the long run .
But more importantly it will mean England will have the 3 most influential performers ready for Grenada in April and this ready for all the battles to follow .
I agree that we may not see Ryan Harris nor will Mitch Johnson have a series like last winter .
Especially if someone happens to place a ball behind him during his warm up that he happens to step on .
Last year’s back to back Ashes (ruinous to our chances) were scheduled that way to give England a better chance in the World Cup. We sacrificed the Ashes for the sake of that tournament, so if England don’t at least get to the final, it would all have been a terrible waste.
It will be a terrible waste.
Top 7 for the world cup. Perm from Cook, Bell, Hales, Ballance, Root, Ali, Morgan, Bopara, Buttler. World cup glory awaits
Got to love someone with a well developed sense of humour.
Cook and Bell opening the WC batting…
As Pink Floyd said, “hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way”.
And hysterical laughter gives way to quiet sobbing while curled up in a corner.
Sorry that was me ( Ian Jones) forgot to log in on my tablet. :(
For me the complacency about the victories isn’t so much about Cook as about:
a) Batting – as you note, with Ishant injured, India haven’t provided the kind of challenge that Australia or South Africa would.
b) Bowling – we’re winning (sometimes!) on friendly pitches. Anderson and Broad were neutered on dryer pitches Down Under – but somehow no-one wants to think about that.
As for Saeed – I’d be happier if Broad and Mitchell Johnson would be examined as well, both put a lot of flex into their effort balls. Sadly, that seems unlikely to happen, because the average commenter and umpire believes it’s a spinner’s problem.
I agree with Maxie’s analysis. If we win at the Oval we will have Cook captaining the Ashes for better or for worse. It’s all good and fine saying we need a charasmatic and dynamic captain up against Clarke but where do we find him? Bell no. Root untried but maybe. Mind you, he is enough to start a brawl in a phone booth and do we want that? Bowlers have a lot to do in the field and who knows for how long we can keep Broad standing. As for ‘whoever’ that’s just not good enough. Cook has something of what we need in a captain but he is lacking in nous in the field, there is no denying that. Bottom line is that I doubt if any if the potential replacements would do any better. A huge upheaval and then we would have to begin the team building/unity again.
I may be in a minority here but I don’t actually think on-field captaincy makes much difference. Most plans are hatched off the field and followed fairly slavishly onfield. Players playing well is what decides series – not funky field placings. If you doubt that, then consider how Michael Clarke – an excellent captain in anyone’s book – could lose combined series 7-0 to Dhoni and Cook. England got blitzed last summer because they didn’t score enough runs and they dropped crucial catches – Cook’s captaincy was a marginal factor in the outcome.
The exception to that rule may be in a close series, where one hunch could be the difference. And I can certainly see a close series in the offing. The Aussies play the swinging ball as badly as we play the short ball and that alone will ensure that both teams start roughly even. Ryan Harris has to be a doubt, and Brad Haddin can’t possibly play that well again. I’m also in full agreement with Ian Martin that Cook, Broad and Anderson should have the winter off.
If I had to predict, I’d say the Ashes is a year or two early for us and the likes of Robson, Jordan, Moeen and Buttler won’t quite be at their best yet. The Aussies will be more battle-hardened and that may prove decisive when games are on the line. 3-1 to Australia with all games being relatively close?
You’re almost persuasive in your argument about on field captaincy.
However you have to factor the management of your bowlers into this and it is an area where Cook appears clueless and wanting in authority.He overbowls his better bowlers but seems to have no control over where and what they bowl.
Your point about the plans being hatched in the dressing room is I believe correct. Where Cook appears inadequate is when the plan clearly is not working he doesn’t have the flexibility or imagination to change as circumstances and the other team dictate.
His recent ‘resurgence’ as a steely and tactically astute captain certainly in the eyes of Moores are to my mind a fantasy. My 7 year old son could have captained and won against this spineless Indian side and he’s only playing grade 2 cricket. And lets not forget that Dhoni is vying with Cook for the worst test captain in the world.
I think the captain is far more important than the coach. I have a real issue about the increasing power of the coach in most modern sports, and the effect it has on players thinking for themselves. I also think a bad captain does more harm than a good captain can do good.
One of the worst aspects of last winters ashes was the coach and captains inability to come up with a plan to deal with Johnson. After all, it was very clear how Clarke was using him. Short 3-4 over spells, and then a rest. Instead of trying to keep hooking him into the stands how about just trying to see him off for 18 balls? It was no secret he was injury prone, and the priority was to keep him out in the field for as long as possible. But thinking on your feet had been replaced by endless computer back room staff..
As for the World Cup we saw in the winter in the 20/20 matches we don’t have the bowlers to contain sides. We actually scored some good totals like chasing down South Africa. But too often we can’t contain on flat pitches. We don’t have a deadly spinner, and the ability to bowl good Yorkers seem to have become a lost art. I know in the modern game with big bats the Yorker is seen as too risky. Slightly wrong and away she goes. But bowled well, and accurately it is better than all this short stuff they serve up. Just look at Malinga.
“Most plans are hatched off the field and followed fairly slavishly onfield”.
At least when Cook’s in charge. I agree with you that players’ form is much more important in winning test matches than captaincy (and hence, that the last two victories owe more to Broad and Anderson’s regained form than anything Cook’s done) but what does matter is how a team’s skipper responds under pressure.
When the going gets tough, Cook goes missing. Under pressure he completely loses the plot, as evidence at Headingley and Lord’s earlier this year.
Not all captains follow pre-hatched plans slavishly – the good ones read the game and follow their instincts. By contrast, and as we’ve seen many times this summer, Cook just carried on with Plan A, even when it’s so blatantly misconceived it almost hurts.
I have to say I find it incredibly odd that the mainstream media now believe Cook is indisputably the man to lead England. He’s certainly earned the right to captain the team until the end of the series, but beyond that? Not so certain. It’s especially odd as it totally contradicts what the majority of them were saying 2 weeks ago.
The football media remained totally unconvinced by David Moyes no matter how many games Man Utd won against bottom of the table opposition. Why are cricket journalists different re: Cook? It can only be explained (in my opinion) by this personality cult that’s developed around Alastair, the fact that most journalist are too close to the players to comment objectively (as ex-players etc), or the ECB has used its influence to curtail negative comment.
The latter does happen in sport: the local Worcester Warriors correspondent, Tom Guest, was absolutely castigated by Dean Ryan (the head coach) when he had the temerity to mention possible relegation at a press conference (even though the team had lost the first 8 games of the season). Guest subsequently toned it down and has now moved jobs. The threat of being banned from press conferences for being too negative presumably hangs over journos throughout their careers. The ECB also seem to be masters at wining and dining influential voices. Remember that pic of Aggers out having fun with Giles Clarke?!
Great points James. The tendency of the press to get “too close” to what they are covering is an issue with many professions. The business press spends way too much time being wined and dined by PR flunkies. So too politics and the Westminster bubble. The journos are terrified of loosing “access.” What they are being spoon fed is bullshit. The PR s give them nice shiny, tit bits to place in their columns. They virtually do their jobs for them. That is why the fear of being shut out scares them. Also huge pressure behind the scenes is used to shut down criticism. Films made by Murdoch’s Fox, are then reviewed by journalists employed by Murdoch’s newspapers, and then promoted on Murdoch’s TV channels.
The ECB is stuffed with City types who know how to play this game. Lots of freebies and rewards for good, obedient journos, and iron fist intimidation if you go off message. Hence why blogs and and on line sites will give you a much broader perspective on most subjects than the corporate media.
Yes I agree. Whenever TMS are doing their pre-match chats on the outfield numerous players wander by and you can hear Aggers / Vaughan etc say ‘Hi Alastair’. They are indeed personal friends with many of them, and dine with them during / before / after matches. They’re not exactly going to be too critical in these circumstances. Even if they try to be objective, personal feelings at least influence what they write subconsciously. It’s hard to be objective when you know you’re going to have to look them in the eye, and have a few awkward moments, if you suggest so and so should be dropped / sacked. Objectivity always requires critical distance.
Re: Worcester warriors, they did get relegated in the end after winning just two of their 22 league matches. Nobody gave a crap that the local journo was right all along. He’s in a new job now and presumably everyone at the club is happy … in the second tier of English rugby rather than the premiership!
When I was ‘having fun with Giles Clarke’ I was actually trying my best to dissuade him from enabling Srinivasan to be elected chairman of ICC. Most of the evening was spent arguing. Ho hum….never mind facts etc…..
The point I was making there is that Giles Clarke was attempting to influence your good self. I didn’t suggest that he succeeded!
I know that you and I share common ground when it comes to the ICC, and many of the issues facing English cricket, and I by no means wanted to imply that you personally have any kind of agenda or bias. What I’m hinting at is a broader tendency for the mainstream media to be more supportive than critical of the status quo (for whatever, probably subconscious, reason).
However, I’d still argue that the overall argument remains. Journalists do dine out with players and officials, and this must hinder objectivity to some extent. I did not mean to pick on any particular journalist in particular – not least your good self who has been extremely accommodating in trying to establish a dialogue between the mainstream media and the blogging community.
I take the point, there are many recent ex players operating as pundits but I’d be careful calling someone’s professional integrity into question.
Re: Agnew I seem to remember him having dinner with Stuart Broad then recommending him to be dropped in an article a day or two later, not conclusive evidence but something which stuck in my mind.
I don’t think anyone is calling anybody’s professional integrity into question. Certainly not Agnew, who did an interview on this blog. It’s one thing to talk broadly about the media interpreting things through a particular prism, but quite another to accuse someone of deliberate bias. I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly don’t think the cricket media is dishonest or deliberately spinning a particular line in a malevolent fashion. I do, however, believe that journalists do see things differently from many fans, and are arguably too close to the protagonists sometimes. I imagine there would be public discontent if Nick Robinson regularly socialised with Ed Miliband etc. Furthermore, if ex-politicians were to become professional political journalists, I’m not sure how seriously their views would be taken (as they are friends with those they’re writing about, and would presumably have some political allegiance to those they previously served with).
A good example would be Andrew Strauss on Sky. He’s valuable because in theory he should be able to tell viewers how the dressing room is likely to respond to certain situations, and perhaps indicate what the mood might be like, but there really is no point listening to his views on whether Cook/Bell etc should be in the team, or remain captain etc, because he’s far too close to them. Nobody really expects him to air his honest views. Consequently, his input will always be limited.
Nasser Hussain is a far more valuable member of Sky’s team now than he used to be, simply because he’s long retired and no longer loyal to the dressing room. No matter how badly things went, he would always (for example) be wary of criticising Duncan Fletcher. This is not calling his professional integrity into question at all, as he was in a tough spot and his reluctance was understandable, however it did mean that his commentary perhaps wasn’t as impartial as it could have been in an ideal world.
If this is the real Aggers, and I have no reason to doubt you, let me thank you for responding, and giving your point of view. It can’t be easy trying to balance both sides. In fairness, by luck or good judgement Test match special has employed Geoff Boycott, who has been 1 of the lone voices in the MSMedia who has said some home truths. Namely that England aren’t very good, or at least not as good as they think they are. Boycott at times can be a pain in the backside,but has made it clear it is nothing personal. He just judges on what he sees. Namely poor technique, poor tactics, poor captaincy, poor coaching. He is not shy at bashing India either.
However,debating Giles Clarke over who should be chairman of ICC, (a position Clarke does not have complete control over) is very different to arguing about domestic cricket issues. Like who should be captain and coach. In my opinion you are not the worst offender, and being the voice of BBC cricket is not an easy one when dealing with an all powerful ECB who can be quite intimidating as they have proved with SKY and Warne.
And again by luck or judgement Test match special got the scoop of the summer. Namely that Graeme Swann had no idea what the price of a test ticket was. £20 was his guess.
We still haven’t had a forensic analysis of all the horrors of the winter in the mainstream press. That frankly says it all about how craven some of the lead cricket correspondents have been.
Cook has effectively got off Scott free for leading the worst England tour in memory.
It is utterly bizarre how completely legitimate criticism based on the long term terrible on field performances of the team has been ignored and described as personal criticism.
The Cult of Cook is one of the weirdest things I’ve seen in a long time. He’s a good player, who we all want to see score runs, but the way some of our commentariat carry on with him is as toe curlingly embarrassing and thin skinned as some Indian fans with Sachin, and at least he was genuinely one of the modern greats.
Anyway, I suppose we are stuck with Cook as test captain. I still think, as Nasser pointed out after the Headingly debacle, that he has more value to the team as batsman than captain.
Surely though for the sake of all that’s sane, they’ve got to give Hales a go in the 50 over team. He has scored runs in all forms this season by the bucket load. He has to play. If that means giving Cook the winter off and letting Morgan or Bell captain the 50 over team, then that can only be a good thing.
Well said, Mike.
Responding also to Mark’s points as well as yours, in the same way that MPs didn’t “get it” with the expenses scandal, the majority (not all, there are numerous exceptions) of cricket correspondents completely misunderstand cricket supporters’ disaffection.
They attribute it entirely to a slavish adoration of Kevin Pietersen the individual, and think we’ve all been whipped up by Piers Morgan.
They have no interest in what we say or what we think. Because we’re not former professionals, and because we don’t get inside information, off the record, we are ignorant and stupid. As far as they’re concerned, we should shut up, know our place, and respect our betters.
They like Cook because he’s a nice bloke one-to-one, and they have developed a relationship with him.
They relate to and sympathise with management because they are in close contact with them, and generally see things from the ECB’s point of view, even if they don’t always agree. Many of them were close acquaintances or even friends with Downton, Whitaker et al during their own playing days. They are from the same generation and cut from the same cloth.
None of them remember or even knew in the first place what it’s like to be a punter – to be excluded from the inner circle, to follow cricket mainly from TV (if you can afford it) and to pay to get into a test match.
Mike Selvey is the definitive example. He was a moderate but earnest county pro for Middlesex, who won a handful of England caps. He has spent his entire adult life around professional cricketers. He relates to and admires cricketers who work hard to turn unflashy skills into honestly-earned success. He sympathises with the realities and challenges of managing players and teams.
And so he recognises Andy Flower and Alastair Cook as kindred spirits because he can see things through their eyes. Accordingly, he has come to admire them and have loyalty to them.
Much of this also applies to Derek Pringle, who of course has such close connections to them through Essex.
Neither Selvey nor Pringle are likely to see things from Kevin Pietersen’s perspective – as an outrageously talented but awkward maverick who rocks the boat through naivety and misjudgement and failure to be one of the lads.
And neither of them (and many others besides) are remotely likely to look at a situation from a supporter’s point of view. When was the last time they watched cricket from “outside”?
Pretty much all bang on there Maxie.
I don’t want a wildly critical media tearing the team to shreds, I just want some objective and analytical reporting which covers multiple points of view. At the moment it’s just a chorus.
Those final paragraphs are particularly salient and echo that excellent post on here from last week; given the decline in attendances it would be great if the nationals sent each of their major correspondents to cover the duration of a test to cover the game outside of the media centres. Speak to the different types of punter (not just members!) and get a feel for why people go to the cricket and the highs and lows of the experience.
Speaking as someone who lives in London & tries to go to at least one day at Lords and the Oval every summer, I still really enjoy it but it is a minimum spend of £50-75 on top of the ticket.
Surely as I’m spending best part of £500 a year plus my Sky subscription, means I’m not outside cricket?
“I don’t want a wildly critical media tearing the team to shreds, I just want some objective and analytical reporting which covers multiple points of view. At the moment it’s just a chorus.”
Amen. Amen.
Pay to get in: outside cricket.
Don’t pay: inside.
Agreed. I support Cook as test captain purely because no one has convinced me that any of the alternatives would do any better – but there’s no way on God’s earth that he should play in the World Cup. Hales to open, as you say, and Morgan to captain. Give Cook (and Anderson) the winter off, and let them get refreshed for the Ashes.
I don’t think it’s all doom and gloom if Cook captains the team next summer. I echo many other comments that the biggest problem with Cook being captain is the impact on his batting, but ultimately good teams win matches not Captains and England are close to having a very good team.
On the batting side we just need an attacking, fluent opener to complement Cook but the rest of the batting line up looks solid (if they can cure their short ball blindness).
Bowling needs more work. We must have 4 front line wicket taking bowlers at the expense of a batting tail if need be. We need Finn back to his best sooner rather than later. Stokes also to me looked good, Plunkett at times. Woakes, Bresnan…um no. Jordan maybe.
With that in mind I hope they drop Woakes, who seems to epitomise the hard working ethic so beloved by the set up, as Maxie notes above, but looks short of test quality. If he could hold his place as a batman alone then maybe he has a future as seaming Mooen.
It seems to me that there isn’t much between the top sides at the moment, especially with home advantage, I think England have a good chance despite the limitations of the Captain and coach.
Spot on guys. I’ve just written a book that tracks the concept of American imperialism in US history. Until the Vietnam War mainstream US journalists and intellectuals denied the existence of American imperialism. The nation’s foreign policy was always seen through a warped/biased prism which assumed everything US policymakers did was benevolent and aimed to achieve the greater good. Self interest was never discussed. This is because the most prominent historians / intellectuals were tied to the government in some way. There was no critical distance. Most accounts of US history were therefore like storytelling narratives that avoided the big issues.
The aim of all this junk was to reaffirm the US national mission, which they agreed was to spread liberty and democracy across the world (and nothing else). This was especially true during the Cold War, when it was politically necessary to reaffirm US benevolence and emphasise Soviet depravity. Anyone who disagreed or objected to the prevailing view was depicted as a fringe idiot.
Obviously the parallels aren’t exact (and the stakes aren’t as high!!!) but this is quite reminiscent of the state of English cricket atm. Anyone who goes against the grain is portrayed as a pariah or unpatriotic (or in our case a KP / Piers Morgan acolyte). In the US during the Cold War you were portrayed as a Marxist, and often sacked from your job (especially if you worked at a university).
Of course, when the dust settled after the Vietnam War, the so called subversive prophets of doom who warned that US expansion would inevitably lead to unnecessary (and arguably immoral) wars were vindicated.
It took 10-20 years but the dissidents’ more critical approach to writing history was gradually assimilated into the mainstream. I hope that something similar happens with cricket journalism eventually. At the moment many commentators are writing romanticised accounts. Blogs, which are often extreme but at least encourage honest debate, are the only place where you can read an alternative interpretation of events.
I’m stretching things a little too far now, and getting serious delusions of grandeur, but it would be nice to think that if the ECB lead English cricket to disaster (I’m talking about broad issues here, not just losing the odd Ashes series) the mainstream press might start taking the blogging community seriously, and realise that we were right about a few things too.
An interesting parallel and I think well drawn. You make the point that blogs are often extreme but I would argue that they are only a response to the embedded nature of writers like Selvey and Agnew who are not only on the other extreme but often fail to report on what is occurring altogether.
I read and post on the Guardian a lot (IanRSA) as do many of the posters here and I think almost without exception that all of those BTL were waiting for that incisive piece on what occurred during the Ashes. It simply never appeared all focus was on Pietersen and his alleged misdeeds.
Every single article that I can recall that focused on Cook, Flower, Downton or the ECB was not open for comment and this just fed the ire of the loyal, knowledgeable supporters BTL.
The amazing thing is that Selvey et al seemed so self involved that they blamed the readers for expecting more in the way of honesty, self examination and even handedness than ever appeared in their articles. And this from an Australian perspective to boot.
I will be delighted to see Cook retained as captain for the next Ashes. :)
Delighted to see Jonathan Agnew pop on to say hello…welcome to the world of fringe idiots and keyboard warriors!!
That’s the thing isn’t it Ian? The lack of other critical voices in the mainstream press.
To be fair to the likes of Mike Selvey, Derek Pringle and Jonathan Agnew, their primary job as chief correspondents for their respective publications is to report breaking news as it happens, so in that sense I don’t think we can criticise them their and maintaining close links with senior players and top brass is undoubtedly necessary for them to fulfil this primary function.
The source of frustration has been the steadfast refusal at time from some of these journalists to acknowledge that there are other credible points of view which might have an element of objective truth in them.
Thus increasingly many of us have turned to blogs such as this & Dmitri’s as well as cricinfo for a broadchurch of opinion. I might not agree with everything posted on here by James & Maxie and those BTL, likewise Dmitri, George Dobell, Jarrod Kimber or David Hopps but at least it’s a dialogue with room for conflicting points of view which are engaged with rather than dismissed as “outside”.
perhaps that’s the key point, as James eloquently points out above, the key to objectivity is distance and the proliferation of ex-pros in the press pack makes it difficult to view things through that prism.
Ultimately we all share the same concern for international cricket and England in particular.
Hi Mike, that is indeed it.!
And I love these well informed well written blogs with engaged interested and interesting writers and commenter’s Dimitri is excellent and Kimber and Dobell are my favourite “mainstream Journo’s”.
I have to take a little different view than that of your last paragraph while like you I agree that we all share concerns about international cricket and I certainly do want to see England as a strong participant I’m afraid I have to admit that my “in particular” is Australia.:)
Ducks thrown objects and sledging.
Many thanks for all the appreciative comments above. Blogs/BTL certainly have a real role in cricket now, much more so than a few years ago. No one blog will ever make much difference, but maybe collectively…?
Couldn’t agree more Mike.
You said above………….”The Cult of Cook is one of the weirdest things I’ve seen in a long time. ”
This is what I feel most strongly about. I have never seen an England captain so protected and eulogised for just doing the basics. (And quite often he does not even do those) The reaction after Old Trafford was akin to VE Day. You would have thought we had just beaten Clive Lloyd’s WI 1976 vintage.
I don’t mind journos supporting Cook and making the case for him. What I object to his the creepy cult coverage of him, and the lack of balance in their reporting.
But he’s an excellent lamber apparently.
It’s excellent to see Mr Agnew participating here indeed I would like to see more main stream jouirno’s in places like this. I honestly feel the level of engagement could be respectful of all participants and informative if perhaps robust.
I would like to know if Mr Agnew actually reported that in his meeting with Giles Clarke (why does the word Oleaginous come to mind) he had taken an opposing view to the appointment of Srinivasan and argued it vigourously because if he didn’t we couldn’t know the facts and they certainly couldn’t be readily inferred.
* Warning – this post contains serious pedantry then ends with some ranting*
I’m normally a big fan of TFT and, along with Dmitri’s blog, you’ve helped me retain a little sanity during the last six months of ridiculous puffery served up by the mainstream media.
However I want to take issue with the “England beat teams like India 99% of the time on home soil” line. Overall, by my reckoning, England have won 51% of their home Tests against India, India have won 11% and 39% were Drawn. Since 1980, the figures are England wins 37%, India wins 19% and Draws 44%. Since 2000, England have won 47%, India 20% and 33% were Draws.
I realise the remark was more of a rhetorical flourish than a precise analysis but I have found some of the “India are poor travellers” stereotyping that has been growing in the British media increasingly annoying. Cricinfo published a table of Win/Loss ratios in away Tests in the last decade and India were third (after SA and Australia – England were sixth). India have benefitted from playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe more in the last decade but even removing these results India still have a better away record than England.
I suppose it is the media’s willingness to make snippy little comments about other country’s records while remaining apparently oblivious to England’s that is so frustrating. “But we came back magnificently in India” blah blah blah. England have lost 25 Tests away in the last decade and won only 14. So where are the articles in newspapers like the Guardian asking if England’s “young millionaires” can be bothered with overseas’ tests…..?
I wrote something similar below the latest bit of ATL cheerleading at the Guardian. I keep seeing “India have won just one of their last 17 away Tests” and that is correct. But England have won only three of their last 17 (the figure goes back exactly to the start of the UAE tour in January 2012). And in all three they were indebted to the performances of three men who aren’t playing any more (Pietersen, Swann and Panesar) and one who is still struggling for form (Cook). No England player outside this group has made a century or taken even a 4-for in an away win since Sydney 2011 when, let’s face it, England were at or very close to a post-2005 peak. When we next play an away Test, more than four years will have passed since then. Food for thought, unless you’re an amnesiac who specialises in patronising other countries, I suppose.
And at least India have won one of their last nine. England haven’t. And that record isn’t all down to Mitch n’ Brad, but also to, er, Peter Fulton and Hamish Rutherford.
Great point.
On a related side note, who actually does have a decent away record? South Africa, anyone else?
South Africa and Australia (just) are the only teams who’ve won more than they’ve lost in away tests in the last decade. The table of Win/Loss ratio(not including recent tests at OT, Galle and Harare) is:
South Africa 1.72 (P47 W19 L11 D16)
Australia 1.2 (P58 W24 L20 D14)
India 0.85 (P56 W17 L20 D18)
Pakistan 0.65 (P64 W19 L29 D15)
Sri Lanka 0.63 (P44 W12 L19 D13)
England 0.56 (P57 W14 L25 D18)
New Zealand 0.41 (P41 W10 L24 D7)
West Indies 0.14 (P45 W4 L28 D13)
(India’s figure could be argued to be inflated by how often they’ve played Bangladesh (6) and Zimbabwe (2). However SA, Australia and England have played the ‘minnows’ exactly the same number of times in the past decade (B2) so their figures are more comparable. Removing B/Z tests the ratios are: SA 1.55; Aus 1.1, Ind 0.5; Eng 0.48).
One could argue our truly dismal record in Australia in the last 10 years is largely responsible for this, accounting as it does for 11 of those defeats, although in truth we’ve been pretty ordinary everywhere.
I wonder if our writers will start prefacing every Antipodean tour with the words “Notoriously awful in Australian conditions” when describing England…
South Africa really were the best team in the world for the last 10 years were they not? Shame they’re a bit shit at home otherwise they probably would have got a bit more credit.
Thanks for the stats, SimonH. I see what you mean about the stereotyping. And of course, India beat us in 2007 and drew in 2002.
Good point. England’s overseas recorded, particularly in the subcontinent, is abysmal. I think India’s recent away record has probably warped perceptions (before Lord’s India hadn’t won away for several matches). Meanwhile, England’s home record might have been impressive over the last 10 years or so, but before that it was dodgy to say the least.
Thanks for your input!
Fascinating article in today’s Times about Moeen Ali’s improvement as a bowler.
Apparently the impetus to bowl faster came from a talk with Ian Bell – and the technical advice on how to put it into practice from… umpire Kumar Dharmasena !
“He told me to grab my pocket as quickly as I could with my non-bowling arm in the follow through…As soon as I bowled one ball I knew it would work”
I thought Cook was getting the credit for transforming Moeen into Jim Laker?
If anyone gets this far down the list of comments – where exactly are these gold nuggets of info that journos claim to have acces to by being up close and personal? I can’t recall reading any surprising revelations. The media may well have been told what England’s XI is tomorrow but they won’t be telling in advance. So if they are being provided with info but not publishing it, what’s the point?
Will Stuart Broad play even if he’s dead???