Geoffrey Bunting is back with a lovely piece that makes the case for Sam Northeast. Is there room in England’s test team for a more experienced player who has done the hard yards on the county circuit?
Joe Clarke is poised on ninety-seven – on the verge of twin hundreds in his first game for Nottinghamshire – when his captain, Steven Mullaney, robs him with an overnight declaration. At the time, it’s a wise call, giving the team as much time as possible to bowl an ailing Yorkshire out on the last day. But once the game is over and Root, from his customary number four position, and Gary Ballance, from his customary static position, have batted out a draw, the more poetic among us can’t help but feel like England’s next young hope has been a little cheated.
Clarke is apparently too selfless and too nice a guy to take umbrage. But there’s little doubt he’s disappointed. Whether you’re playing down the green on Saturday or at Trent Bridge, whether you have fourteen hundreds to your name or one, you would be disappointed to miss out on a century.
But thanks to that game, which saw classy runs in both innings, we’re all talking about Joe Clarke for the right reasons again. While the past few months have revealed his minor part in the Alex Hepburn rape trial – and the repellent Worcestershire text-chain it revealed – now we’re talking about him playing for England, and soon. After all, according to some of the coaches on the circuit, he’s the next Joe Root. He’s got the technique for the big stage, he can adapt to format and situation, and, as far as many fans are concerned, he’s the next big thing. What’s more, he appears to have the game to bat three for England, which will please Joe Root. As England attempt to protect their underachieving batting core, the number three position is becoming the new short-leg: put the new guy in there and hope for the best. Joe Clarke looks like he could make it his own.
But while we fawn over the obvious talent of Joe Clarke (and with good reason) – and a few in the West Country murmur that James Hildreth has started batting at three for Somerset – another hopeful quietly scored a better hundred on a more difficult pitch one-hundred and sixty-eight miles away.
~
It’s been a while for Sam Northeast. Not everyone has as easy a transition from schoolboy prodigy to the giddy heights of test match cricket as Alistair Cook. Northeast knows that as well as anyone. He might have broken Cook’s school records, but he struggled in his initial steps in first-class cricket. Back then, another wunderkind was fresh on our minds as we watched Billy Godleman struggle to turn his prolific U19 form into runs for Middlesex. We wondered, as Northeast’s average hovered around thirty after the first few seasons of his career, whether he would suffer the same fate. But while leadership often tempers batsmen, the Kent captaincy – and the extra responsibility he took on at the club – revitalised his game and placed him in the England radar. And if his form this season is anything to go by – beautiful hundreds against Oxford MCCU (118) and Essex (169) – 2019 might just finally be Sam Northeast’s year.
At twenty-nine, he’s older than his closest competition. But while the appeal of twenty-two-year-old Clarke is what, given his talent now, he might achieve in the years to come, Northeast offers instead a wealth of experience, both as player and leader, and sits at the start of what should be his best years. And while Northeast might not play for the Lions as much as Clarke, England’s second eleven has started to look a bit like an under-19 finishing school than an A-team. And with the likes of Steven Mullaney featuring heavily in recent Lions line-ups, A-team selection looks just as confused as the issues facing the senior side of late – a confusion that nobody seems keen to take responsibility for.
Taking over the Kent captaincy at twenty-six, Northeast is no stranger to responsibility. With the team in disarray, Northeast took on a mantle of administrator, recruiter, and selector, off the field, while directing an inconsistent team on the field. One wonders how many other young captains might have done the same. Especially as we continue to watch Joe Root make everyone bat at three for England so he doesn’t have to. There was an impression of absolute dedication in Northeast’s dependability, an impression even an acrimonious exit from Kent in 2017 couldn’t mar. And it’s that kind of dedication and dependability that England could use. We’ve had to put up with a red-faced Jonny Bairstow sulking over losing the gloves to a superior keeper (and, looking at Bairstow’s performances over the past eighteen months, a better batsman) and Stokes not wanting to field in the slips because it’s too boring. In a loose England team that frequently misses the mark, a character like Northeast would be a welcome addition to the dressing room for player and spectator alike.
But as much as we might compare age, experience, and character, Northeast and Clarke find themselves, perhaps surprisingly given that Clarke has played a third of the cricket Northeast has, in very similar positions. Both are starting fresh at new clubs – Northeast moved a year earlier, but his 2018 season was curtailed by injury – and both have big years ahead of them that might lead to England honours. And to that end, it’s runs that count.
Compact and organised, Northeast certainly appears to have the technique for scoring runs in test cricket. He moves into the ball well from a strong, upright base, he plays well off the back foot – an asset Duncan Fletcher always credited as vital to success as an international batsman – and is an accomplished player of spin bowling. He has all the attributes needed to succeed at the top level. Which is more than you can say for some of the batsmen England have tried of late.
His average of 39.2 might not look stellar, but Clarke is only just breaching the hallowed mark of forty (40.2 to be exact). And given that Ben Stokes, allegedly one of England’s premier batsmen, deemed good enough to bat three only a few months ago, boasts a first-class average a shade under thirty-four; and that Jonny Bairstow is viewed as our second best batsman with an average in the mid-thirties, a batsman with a first-class average around forty would be a welcoming addition to a line-up for whom mediocrity is to readily becoming the norm.
~
It would be hard on both Joe Denly and Rory Burns if they didn’t turn out against Ireland on the 24th July, or at least start the Ashes. But with so much time between the end of the West Indies tour and the beginning of England’s test summer, there’s plenty of opportunity for English first-class batsmen to make their case. And with their runs in the first round of the County Championship, both Clarke and Northeast have made a good impression while Denly has warmed the bench at the IPL.
Either might find themselves in and around the England test team this year. In an Ashes series that promises to be played between two very flawed teams, early Australian success might see the long lifelines extended to some England batsmen finally severed. And while Joe Clarke might have a little extra youth on his side – and experience as a wicket keeper that incites Pavlovian erections in Ed Smith – Northeast isn’t exactly an elder statesman. But in the end, Clarke might find recent events to his detriment, and the England management might opt to give him a little more time to distance himself from the fallout of Alex Hepburn’s rape trial. If that opens the door for Sam Northeast, England would struggle to find a more dependable batsman and it would be interesting to see how his talent and character might translate to the international stage. But more than that, it would be interesting to see how the inclusion of an independent character like Northeast might effect and England team in dire need of a shake-up. Whether he found success or not, it might just be the new snow needed to dislodge the avalanche that England so desperately need.
Either way for many of his admirers, if he does win selection for England, it would be a richly deserved reward after years of being ignored by England.
Geoffrey Bunting
So…
Clarke is the better batsman but should be overlooked due to some feminist rubbish or other?
Not particularly persuasive..
I don’t think that’s what Geoffrey is saying. Northeast is an experienced player and as we all know English batsmen often tend to mature in their late 20s – a bit later than other nationalities. It’s worth pointing out that Mike Hussey didn’t make his test debut until he was 30 I recall. Alec Stewart is another example. He was 27 when he made his test debut and averaged under 40 in county cricket at the time. He turned out pretty well too. I think the point Geoffrey makes about the lewd text messages is that it perhaps betrays a little immaturity on Clarke’s part.
Can’t say I’ve seen much of either…
Though a lower average, lower strike rate, poor conversion ratio, poorer centuries per innings…
I’m not enthused about either however using tittle tattle rather than cricketing ability as the arbiter seems…. wrong.
I was going to report this comment because “feminist rubbish” to describe a rape trial is not what I was expecting to read in defence of a cricketer. Let the jury decide. But misogyny is alive and well it seems because Joe Clarke is described as a “nice guy”. And his role in the trio who were targeting young girls could not be described as a minor part. We had the scandal of young footballers. Do we want the crossover of those dubious ethics tainting cricket? But Bairstow is admonished for being sulky? Geoffrey Bunting is misleading the debate with a questionable set of values. No we don’t decide on cricket skills by off field behaviour but we shouldn’t play them down either in order to be partisan.
I would point out that I didn’t describe Joe Clarke as a nice guy, that plenty of others have – mostly in relation to that declaration – hence the word “apparently” attached to it.
His part in Hepburn’s rape trial has been fairly minor, as he’s been little more than a witness in the proceedings. It is perhaps a fault of the wording that it might appear that I describe his part in the Worcestershire text-chain, or the text-chain itself, as minor; but it certainly isn’t. It’s a deplorable situation that undoubtedly led to the rape of a young girl, and in that Clarke is undoubtedly complicit.
It is a conversation cricket needs to have, as to how much a player’s behaviours should affect their career, especially when external sources are responsible for the initial judgment – a la Ben Stokes beating the living shit out of someone – after all, we’ve recently seen Scott Kuggeleign play for New Zealand after an alleged rape that, at worst – and most likely – was exactly as the victim described, and at best behaviour woefully unbecoming of a professional cricketer; regardless of what the jury said.
But while that is a conversation that needs to be had and/or an article to be written here (and please, write that) this was a conversation about two potential England cricketers. Regardless of his recent behaviour, Clarke is on England’s radar and, from where I sit, is on that radar for the same spot as Northeast might be. And as I wrote towards the end of the piece (“Clarke might find recent events to his detriment, and the England management might opt to give him a little more time to distance himself from the fallout of Alex Hepburn’s rape trial.”) I do believe that, quite rightly, Clarke’s recent behaviour and what it, as a part of Worcestershire’s grody sex texts, led to will count against him; as evidenced by his being sent home from a Lions tour after news of his involvement emerged.
I do believe we need to, at the very least, acknowledge professional cricketers’ discretions – perceived serious or not, whether it’s a part they play in something like the Alex Hepburn case, a lack of responsibility in their own profession (i.e. Bairstow being “sulky” rather than professional), or Ben Stoke’s entire career of dubious shit. But there is also room, alongside that acknowledgment, to discuss the cricket. My values, as it happens, are my own, and a few stray lines in a piece that does acknowledge the discretions of Joe Clarke and the implication on his maturity and character, within a conversation that focusses squarely on the cricket, are not enough for a stranger to assess them or me.
Yes I agree. Would put him with Hildreth and a Bell recall. But the ECB would rate the former to old and the latter a backward step. At the end of the day even Roy would be better opening than Jennings, but I reckon they will stick with Burns and Denley and bring Vince back. Wouldn’t rule out a Sir Alistair comeback either! The cupboard is pretty bare.
The ECB hasn’t got a clue about Test cricket and doesn’t want to! Has no idea of what is required to play for five days. Very well informed on the mythical virtues of The Hundred. Ed Smith thinks he’s a minor God in the pantheon and can pluck anyone forth to perform. But it might as well be a lottery for the sense behind selection. Bell deserved to be selected for the winter tour to prepare for the Ashes. Instead of wasting time on franchise cricket and getting injured. Age has not prevented his selection but his too honest support for KP against the wishes of his masters. Cricket is that petty at the so called higher levels. It’s about time it stopped acting like a minor sport with cliques. Integrity at the top would help. Favouritism is a factor especially from the Lions camp. Never sure why County Cricket has the blame for Test failures. But as a Durham fan we know that a brilliant team and set up was shafted for the sake of promoting The Hundred and doing deals. I sympathise with the cricketers who are just pawns in this shoddy exercise where being “cool” trumps how we view a serious sport.
Just a word to the ECB if you try to be cool that is really uncool. And who would have thought waistcoats were now cool thanks to Southgate?
I believe Denly was a mad experiment never to be repeated again.
Jennings has his flaws but at least he occupied the crease and batted time.
I agree with Geoffrey regarding the “established” middle order and especially Bairstow’s attitude. I also believe that Butler seems to escape criticism, he might have been “the best of a bad bunch” recently but he has never scored the volume of runs to demand his place. At 50-3 is Jos really the man you want striding to the wicket?
Northeast and/or Clarke should both be under serious consideration (if they maintain their start to the season). Some serious decisions need to be made about a continually underperforming batting unit which seems to be designed to accommodate Root, Bairstow, Butler, Stokes, Ali rather than to score runs – whilst nobody in top 3 is a deserved automatic pick. Much of this should have been addressed in the WI, unfortunately we appear to have hamstrung ourselves going into an Ashes.
I am more optimistic about the available talent than Doug. However, if we go into the Ashes with two of Roy, Vince, Hales or Denly in the top three I believe Bayliss is an Aussie secret agent.
For many years now I have played the Eidos computer game, cricket manager and it is fair to say that James Hildreth has been one of the prime sticking points playing Somerset time out of mind. Just when you seem to have their batting line up In trouble he comes along and makes a particularly annoying 50’s to foil victory pushes. There are very few players in this game that seem to perform with his consistency. For this reason I plump for Hildreth every time. It may not be scientific but I have a soft spot for the old bugger.
But this England side are world class !!
Bairstow
Stokes
Buttler
Ali
Burns
What this side really is is over rated and full of nearly men. Players who if surrounded by performers can do well but aren’t good enough to stand alone
And yes, cricketers are role models and professionals so off field stuff should have an effect on selection and wages. They don’t currently and that’s why they, like footballers behave like the rules don’t apply