So, where now for England?

by JKLever Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:16 am

We're in a bit of a rut at the moment where we're not getting our arses spectacularly whooped by the opposition (since the Ashes) but are coming off with another narrow series loss.

0-1 twice to India having played decent cricket at times, 1-2 to SA which could have gone either way, 0-1 now to the WI in which we've been the better side for 3 of the 4 games ( or for sure the only side looking to win) and 0-1 in Sri Lanka

That rather is an indictment of our bowling. I know we like to bash our batting but we have got batsman who regularly score 100's and you would say have laid decent platforms for better results (for the want of having sides 8 or 9 down)

The bowling is without doubt the problem, with more of a cutting edge we would have stood a chance of winning 3 of those 4 test series such is the narrow margin.

Anderson is averaging 35 which puts it into perspective. Sure he had a good game but that's 1 in how many? Not good enough.

Tis all very frustrating, it's not as if we're total shoite and you could live with it.

by Chivalry Augustus Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:21 am

Better side for three of the four matches? Two. Even then it was like a battle to be the best spastic in a vat of acid. It was an awful series and England lost it playing awful cricket with their collapse at Sabina Park. Whilst the Windies effort to protect that lead was by no means masterful, they always kept a poor looking England side at bay. Even at the ARG, on the cusp of victory, the tenth wicket partnership was way too comfortable. England's cricket lacked energy, ability and nous.

They lose many Test Matches in a session and refuse to let the habit go. There were some good things to come out of the series - Swann in particular - but the bad things out-weighed them (the 'revival' of the batsmen, papering over the cracks). We did our post-mortems over on C24/7 yesterday and this was mine:

I think this tour has created an illusion or two. The first and maybe the only illusion is that our batting is all of a sudden very solid. The strong performances since that 51 all out have papered over a lot of cracks thanks to the featherbed pitches. I still don't see any solidity in the batting line-up and against strong sides on pitches offering even a little, I am nowhere near confident. I think the West Indies better batting performances have shown England up for their ordinariness even in spite of the big scores they've been putting up. The 51 all-out can be considered as a phenomenal collapse, yet one which occurs all too often in this England team, and generally consists of the same personnel. My point is that against an attack that takes its wickets at an average closer to 40 than 30 as a general rule and on flat pitches at that, strong batting is not merely an expectation but a certainty. Yet even in amongst that we have the obvious scent of weakness with the aberration at Sabina Park on a pitch that in no way merited a collapse to 51 all-out. On that basis, though it's very harsh of me, I would not subscribe to the thought that our batting looks in any way good let alone solid all of a sudden. I remember us making big scores against the West Indies in England, even from ridiculous positions, before going on to collapse in Sri Lanka, in New Zealand, in just about everywhere.

However, they can hide behind the awfulness of the bowlers for the time being. We are desperately short of quality seam bowlers, but more than that we are short of bowlers with any sort of x-factor. The Ashes seem quarter was founded on the ability of each member to offer something unique, to offer variety, from orthodox swing to steepling bounce to accuracy and wild reverse swing. The current attack is one paced and reliant on horizontal movement of the ball to offer anything anywhere in the world. These pitches have been flat but flat wickets can be overcome with either great skill, accuracy or intelligence. I think our bowlers are lacking in all of those departments at the minute and their one-paced nature hinders them as a collective. Once a batsman negotiates the early stages of his innings he is playing the same way throughout and doesn't really need to adapt whatsoever. Even the West Indies' attack has great variety relative to England's, with the likes of Edwards, Taylor and Powell all capable of nudging past or even way beyond 90mph on occasion. Our success has unsurprisingly come from the variety in pace and the intelligence offered by Graeme Swann. He has done nothing spectacular but has thought ahead and kept the opposition thinking.

The second illusion, though this may be questionable, is that England have the potential to improve. I myself subscribed to this viewpoint but have seen it blown away in seeing poor substitutes step into the side and offer as little or less than the previous incumbents. Whilst Graeme Swann seized his opportunity, we have to put it into perspective by saying that Monty Panesar too had early success against the West Indies and has generally performed well against the poorer sides. The likes of Owais Shah and Amjad Khan too have come into the team and offered no more than the players they replaced. Shah has looked edgy and seems to have become a little like Ian Bell in that he is a man with talent but full of internal strife. He made a couple of scores without going on to make the big innings that we want from our number 3. He sometimes started off aggressively before realising what was at stake and withdrawing into his shell. The similarities between him and Bell are uncanny. Amjad Khan, for all the x-factor, has been all over the place, like a lot of other English bowlers. Overall, the depth has been frighteningly shallow, and unless there are better players hiding either at home or in New Zealand currently, our team can only continue along this path of self-destruction.

At the end of the tour, an assessment of the team:

DEFINITES; Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Matt Prior, Andrew Flintoff, Paul Collingwood.

PROBABLES; Alastair Cook.

UNSURE; Stuart Broad, Owais Shah, Ravi Bopara, Ryan Sidebottom, Amjad Khan, Monty Panesar, Graeme Swann.

BACKUPS; Tim Ambrose.

NO THANK YOU; Steve Harmison, James Anderson.

by Yorkie Jill Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:22 am

Is this the rut that happens every few years, or is it worse?

If this were a business - and it is in a way - there would be reviews for why these poor performances are happening, removal of bonuses, implementing of new plans, personnel, schemes to find a wrist spinner - (cause obviously Adil wasn't what they were looking for suicide

ffs) to find pace, to reduce the crud from the bottom of the county champ etc etc.

So why doesn't it happen? What did the Schofield report do?

It's always there, simmering, and results like this bring it to the fore everytime.

by Gary 111 Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:23 am

The team has forgotten how to win. How many matches is it now that they've had their opponents 8 or 9 down and not killed them off?

Plus, pivotal games against India and SA when a crucial wicket would have turned the game, but it never came.

I actually think Anderson is one of the least of the problems, he at least will keep running in all day and seems to be learning. 9 wickets at 38 isn't terrible considering he played on the three low, slow wickets and missed the game at Sabina Park where there was more life in the wicket...

by JKLever Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:23 am

Augustus wrote:
They lose many Test Matches in a session and refuse to let the habit go.

Agree totally with this. Too many really bad 'test losing' sessions atm...

by JKLever Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:28 am

Augustus wrote:
At the end of the tour, an assessment of the team:

DEFINITES; Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Matt Prior, Andrew Flintoff, Paul Collingwood.

PROBABLES; Alastair Cook.

UNSURE; Stuart Broad, Owais Shah, Ravi Bopara, Ryan Sidebottom, Amjad Khan, Monty Panesar, Graeme Swann.

BACKUPS; Tim Ambrose.

NO THANK YOU; Steve Harmison, James Anderson.

I don't think our batting is as strong as any of the top 3 sides but it's managable IMO. We have a bloke averaging 50+, whereas we don't have a bowler averaging the equivalent 24/5.

Ironically at least one of your NO THANK YOU's will play at Cardiff in the first test. Bad times...

by Chivalry Augustus Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:31 am

You can probably justify that though. Likely to have some grass, will probably be wet and Jimmy will swing it round corners. In fairness to Jimmy, he has shown a lot of heart and determination and I PRAY for his success. He deserves it. Unlike Harmison who's a pea-hearted sook.

by PeterCS Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:39 am

Lever has a point, in that it's a sort of torture.

The odd horrendous-scale flop. Then improvement .... some good signs. Followed by a dispiriting performance again. And hardly ever quite good enough. But never for very long so abject you would give up hope altogether.

Tantalus had it easy.

No wonder England supporters tend to a gallows humour and/or extremely cautious optimism masked in profound pessimism at almost all times.

"If you expect the worst, you can't be disappointed."

Except sometimes with England ....

by OP Tipping Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:40 am

"Re: So, where now for England?"

Back to England, back to friendly curators...

by Gary 111 Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:44 am

If the wickets do have plenty of grass & swing / seam, i'm not looking forward to our shower of batsmen, with Flintoff at number 6, facing the likes of Johnson, Clark & Hilfenhaus (or for that matter Edwards & Taylor...)

by JKLever Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:45 am

OP Tipping wrote:"Re: So, where now for England?"

Back to England, back to friendly curators...

Yeah? Our bastard sons of bitches groundsmen prepare roads when the oppo is 1-0 up!

by spangler Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:50 am

How many of the players can genuinely improve and how many are in the 'they will improve' mode for the last 6 -12 months.

by JKLever Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:02 am

spangler wrote:How many of the players can genuinely improve and how many are in the 'they will improve' mode for the last 6 -12 months.

I think Strauss,Cook,KP in the top 5 are reliable test performers. There's always room for a grafter with balls in Colly which leaves 1 of the top 5 open. Prior is stitched on at 6 - he might be a bye-monster but actually looks like a test player. Flintoff 7, Broad 8 is improving and Swann 9 is a mucho decent spin option who can bat.

Which leaves 2 bowling spaces.

There. We need 1 bat & 2 bowlers to come through and IMO we would not have a bad side.

by PeterCS Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:06 am

Key, Monty/Rashid/Anderson and perhaps Maunders?

It's alarming what happened to Shah. Morphed into Bell.

by LeFromage Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:13 am

spangler wrote:How many of the players can genuinely improve and how many are in the 'they will improve' mode for the last 6 -12 months.

Of England's young players, only Broad has made any improvement in the last 12 months. And that only in this series.

Cook might have been given an easy hundred to buy some breathing space, but he still looks like his game is in pieces.

Panesar - gone backwards.

I think that's the greatest concern for England: the feeling that we can't seem to get talented young players to kick on.

Things seemed more optimistic under Fletcher - and with Rod Marsh and Troy Cooley working the Academy. When a young guy was singled out, there was a bit of a buzz about how he might develop under their guidance. But that's gone now. Replaced by the worry of how England are going to f*ck up the next talented cricketer's development.

See: A. Rashid, drinksman. What a brilliant winter he's had, sitting on his arse being babied by the grown-ups when he could've had a gig playing some actual cricket and learning something if he'd stayed with the A team.

I'm not hopeful they'll handle him correctly. It looks like he's going to be thrown into the ODIs for his first experience of international cricket. For a guy with a modest one-day record, I can't work out how that's going to serve him well. A couple of clobberings and he'll be out of the team and replaced with a steady-Eddie like Gareth Batty - the lesson learned is: bowl to contain. No frills. Just don't get hit.

Bad times.

by Gary 111 Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:15 am

JKLever wrote:
spangler wrote:How many of the players can genuinely improve and how many are in the 'they will improve' mode for the last 6 -12 months.

I think Strauss,Cook,KP in the top 5 are reliable test performers. There's always room for a grafter with balls in Colly which leaves 1 of the top 5 open. Prior is stitched on at 6 - he might be a bye-monster but actually looks like a test player. Flintoff 7, Broad 8 is improving and Swann 9 is a mucho decent spin option who can bat.

Which leaves 2 bowling spaces.

There. We need 1 bat & 2 bowlers to come through and IMO we would not have a bad side.

So who will the selectors pick? How about Vaughan, Anderson & Panesar (assuming we leave a bit in the pitches for the spinners)

by JKLever Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:24 am

Gary 111 wrote:
JKLever wrote:
spangler wrote:How many of the players can genuinely improve and how many are in the 'they will improve' mode for the last 6 -12 months.

I think Strauss,Cook,KP in the top 5 are reliable test performers. There's always room for a grafter with balls in Colly which leaves 1 of the top 5 open. Prior is stitched on at 6 - he might be a bye-monster but actually looks like a test player. Flintoff 7, Broad 8 is improving and Swann 9 is a mucho decent spin option who can bat.

Which leaves 2 bowling spaces.

There. We need 1 bat & 2 bowlers to come through and IMO we would not have a bad side.

So who will the selectors pick? How about Vaughan, Anderson & Panesar (assuming we leave a bit in the pitches for the spinners)

We don't get a choice over what pitches we get though do we? They're generally decent test decks that last for 5 days and are usually influenced by the weather/cloud cover.

I genuinely don't know. Khan didn't impress me, Andersons cycle is now pap-pap-pap-pap-good, and we'll not see Harmison again. Wouldn't pick Monty either as we're not playing at OT this year.

Tremlett showed real promise and can bat a bit which is a bonus.

As for the batsman - take your pick... we need them to be aggressive if they're going to bat 3 whilst KP insists on being a wuss. Shah looked stitched on for the job but is doing his best Ian Bell impression on this tour

by beamer Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:41 am

I think we have probably had our expectations raised by a couple of freak years of success when everything just clicked for whatever reason. Just imagine that those 18 months-2 years never happened, if we somehow just jumped from late 2003 to late 2005, and we'd have had near enough another decade of much the same kind of performances we used to expect from England, the occasional moment of hope but usually ending in disappointment and the knowledge that we were about to get stuffed by Australia again.

Most of our players are fairly ordinary at this level, we've got one and a half world-class players (the half being Freddie with his fitness record), a few who are decent enough and a few places we really struggle to fill. The positive is that there is no really outstanding team right now, most if not all the teams are potentially beatable if you find the right formula somehow and get that winning habit back. There seems to be a negative mindset at the moment that is preventing us from winning Tests and winning series. That's why we're now 6th or 7th ranked, rather than 3rd or 4th. Get the right coach in and they should be able to improve to some extent.

We had illusions of making it right to the top a few years ago. It's now obvious that to do that we've got to scrap the entire system and create a domestic competition that produces world-class, mentally tough players. It's not going to happen is it?

by Chivalry Augustus Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:51 am

The obvious solution is to get the Buddha in the team batting at 5.

Graeme Swann's achievements prove that we don't have enough Nottinghamshire boys in there. Only two England bowlers average under 30 and they're both Notts boys. If Stuart Broad had hung around long enough he'd have caught the knack.

by beamer Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:09 am

Well, Notts are doing their bit for England at least, even if most of them were signed from other counties!

Actually, maybe we should just keep the 6 counties based at the traditional Test grounds and reduce the others to minor county status (or maybe not even that, in the case of Direbyshire...) Have a 6-team competitive first-class competition like they do in Australia. That would soon get us producing a decent England team. How we'd get the others to vote in favour of it though...

I blame whoever divided England into so many counties for our crapness at cricket, the Aussies planned it well when they created their 6 or 7 states!

by JKLever Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:16 am

beamer wrote:Well, Notts are doing their bit for England at least, even if most of them were signed from other counties!

Actually, maybe we should just keep the 6 counties based at the traditional Test grounds and reduce the others to minor county status (or maybe not even that, in the case of Direbyshire...) Have a 6-team competitive first-class competition like they do in Australia. That would soon get us producing a decent England team. How we'd get the others to vote in favour of it though...

I blame whoever divided England into so many counties for our crapness at cricket, the Aussies planned it well when they created their 6 or 7 states!

Have a regional FC comp above the counties, and scrap the 2nd T20 rubbish...

by LeFromage Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:18 am

beamer wrote:Well, Notts are doing their bit for England at least, even if most of them were signed from other counties!

Sent out the odd one too - Will Smith looks a player in the making.

by beamer Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:21 am

Dello wrote:
beamer wrote:Well, Notts are doing their bit for England at least, even if most of them were signed from other counties!

Sent out the odd one too - Will Smith looks a player in the making.

We used to have a bloke called Pietersen as well, apparently he's a player with potential...

by LeFromage Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:24 am

Oh, him...

FTB.

by Basil Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:24 pm

Augustus wrote:

At the end of the tour, an assessment of the team:

DEFINITES; Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Matt Prior, Andrew Flintoff, Paul Collingwood.

PROBABLES; Alastair Cook.

UNSURE; Stuart Broad, Owais Shah, Ravi Bopara, Ryan Sidebottom, Amjad Khan, Monty Panesar, Graeme Swann.

BACKUPS; Tim Ambrose.

NO THANK YOU; Steve Harmison, James Anderson.

[/quote]

Matt Prior - more of an unsure
Ali Cook - a certainty never mind a probable
Stuart Broad - probable
Graeme Swann - probable when we only play one spinner
Anderson - God knows it grieves me to say this, but probable after his performance in this test.

by Sponsored content