Moeen Ali retires from Tests

He’s called it a day to focus on the white-ball game at the age of 34. So, serial underachiever or frequently mistreated victim of circumstances? Probably a bit of both.

Hard to argue against the fact that his stats don’t reflect his natural talent, particularly with the bat where he’s ended up averaging below 30. But then again he’s been up and down the order like the proverbial… batting everywhere from 1 to 9 to fit the circumstances and “balance” the side. Never really found his niche, and perhaps as a consequence valued his wicket less and less as the years went by. With the ball, clearly a wicket-taking spinner but not always with the control required from your slow bowler in a seam-focused attack. Still, 16th-highest wicket taker for England and third among spinners is a notable achievement.

Basil: "Frequently mistreated victim ..."

Aussie forummer: "Yah yah boo yah sucks!"


I broadly agree with you, beamer...  A mixed bag of messed around a lot and didn't always - I mean consistently - press his case for stardom (or sometimes even a guaranteed Test spot).

Some very good highs, but - like Hick, Ramprakash and many others, not all of them English-born - so much talent only partly realised.

I'd think (FWIW) again like Hick & Ramps, nerves played a considerable part, and perhaps - despite assured, confident face - also some self-doubt.

(But then, all individual cases are different: with Hick, most of all, I guess, a case of 7 years of waiting, and pressure to be the star he potentially was also at the top level, regularly getting to him.)

None of that is the same as muttering, screaming or bellowing "lily-livered", "lacking intestinal fortitude", or this Foum's favourite taunt, "pea-hearted" - ... as if Test cricket is easy-peasy.

But also, apart from the demons of pressure - team, selector, community (also British Asian community), broad public and one's own self-imposed pressure - with Mo, it looks like a sort of ... diffidence based on having other values too.

A set of values that don't rhyme "sport" with "killer instinct".

Is that a fault? Well, maybe. I'm not so sure. I don't think Moeen was ever not doing his best. It's just that, in the end, he appears to have considered that there is a bit more to sport - more to life - than winning by any means, including foul: sledging, drugs or whatever.

And that sport is important, also as a role model, but not what matters supremely above all else.

(FWIW) I have nothing but admiration for Moeen as a human being.

Some evidence, I think, for such conclusions as I suggest above:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/10/moeen-ali-behaviour-england-team-ben-duckett-ashes

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/01/moeen-ali-england-cricket-racism-islam

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/jun/05/england-moeen-ali-cricket

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/20/moeen-ali-england-cricket-world-cup-ashes-interview <---- this one most of all.

Oh, and this one too. Very much this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/15/diversity-strength-england-win-cricket-world-cup

No bagging, just agreeing that he was a talented player who was a serial underachiever.

He is on record as saying he hated touring down under and this retirement avoids another such tour.

I think there’s an argument that he was a batting all-rounder who we tried to turn into a bowling all-rounder, due to the lack of spin options we had. Which was partially successful, but at the expense of what he should have brought with the bat.

Spinners of talent have always been marginalised and messed about in the English game, from Tufnell to Panesar to Leach. They’re an afterthought, the first one to give when conditions don’t suit or there’s a need to “balance the side”. Moeen’s batting ability sets him apart from the aforementioned three, but had he been a seam bowling all-rounder he’d surely have been viewed as a player to build around as per a Botham, Flintoff or Stokes.

(Back to regular ID by the way - as I was actually in Norfolk last week, I couldn’t resist…)

Mo over-achieved with the ball and under-achieved with the bat.

If he had had Stokes' competitive edge, there's no telling what he might have achieved.

It does force England to move on definitively in the spin department, anyway. Still questions as to whether they can find a line-up that accommodates Leach. Bess hasn’t developed, Rashid presumably still plays no red-ball cricket. Parkinson’s been around squads but not got an opportunity.

I suspect, in the absence of a world-beater, they want a containing spinner who can bat at 8 and do a job in the field, a modern-day Ashley Giles… a spinner who can’t bat or field has to be a Warne or Murali, really, to justify a regular place for England outside of Asian tours.

Well done on a decent test career with very good highs.

Think his was one of the moor glaring cases of England fitting a player into roles not meant for him. Opener, lead spinner, middle order player. In the end, what was he? While he under achieved overall, I think England hurt him plenty.

Fair call, t.

England’s Watto?

A potentially fine middle order batsman who was shoe-horned into many uncomfortable roles (unfoldable shoes).

lardbucket wrote:England’s Watto?

A potentially fine middle order batsman who was shoe-horned into many uncomfortable roles (unfoldable shoes).

Yeah, perhaps, if you were to combine him with Broad’s DRS profligacy as well…