Since losing the first of six tests against New Zealand back in March, England have enjoyed consistency both in selection and performance. As New Zealand meekly folded on the fourth morning and England sealed comprehensive test and series victory, it would be easily supposed that the glorious Nottingham sunshine reflected England's fortunes. In one sense, it did: successive series victories are territory unknown since the heady days of 2004/5. But the caveats are unavoidable: New Zealand were the opposition on both occasions, a unit whose potency has been severely reduced by the loss of important personnel; in three out of the four victories, success emerged from first innings situations which seemed perilous, and England were reliant on two batsmen - Kevin Pietersen and Tim Ambrose- to rescue them repeatedly. New Zealand will not relish the irony of their own favourite manoeuvre - the bottom half of the batting order salvaging the wreckage of the top - being repeatedly used against them.
It is perhaps a little churlish to find fault in the manner of England's success: after all, many of the now famous victories they enjoyed in 2004-5 were achieved from similarly doubtful scenarios. Yet the question remains of how far, if at all, England have progressed and what has been learned about the team. The top order, which seemed uncertain at the end of the winter, at least appears settled for now, only Alistair Cook failing to make a significant impact on the series. The next two in, Bell and Collingwood, were the batsmen most under scrutiny coming into the final Test: their departures within minutes of each other for a pair of ducks only served to underline their shared predicament. Collingwood's situation is simple - he is a good player badly out of form and he has the one-day series to convince the selectors not to dispose of him for the South Africa series. Bell, as ever, is more difficult to rationalise. As an elegant, ethereal player, it is harder to attach the tag of bad form to him than the scrappy, unreconstructed Collingwood. He is the supreme batting technician of the side, with a style which is neither awkward nor ostensibly permeable. Often the main criticism of him has been his inability to construct big innings once past 50; after a series which did not yield that many runs in total, knives are being sharpened both in the press and, potentially, selectorial conclave. England want to back Bell, whose talent and potential is so manifest; there is a good chance that their support will extend to the next series. Whether that is the best thing for the player, as well as the team, is doubtful: it seems unlikely that Bell will suddenly evolve from his current catharsis into the match defining batsman his ability suggests he should be. A period of re-evaluation in county cricket may well be the best thing for him.
As one batting enigma continued to frustrate, England's most inscrutable bowler, James Anderson, took flight. Trent Bridge, with its recently earned reputation as a swing bowler's paradise, was Anderson's chance and he could not have made his mark in more spectacular fashion. It was Hoggard-like swing, but later and at higher speed, a combination which was too much for most of the New Zealand batsmen, as it would have been for nearly all Test batsmen. Yet even in his finest hour, Anderson's weaknesses were on show: Brendon McCullum envisaged clipping Anderson to the square leg boundary, only to find the ball speared in towards his legs curve past the closed face of his bat at the last moment. Another time, the ball would have carried on its path from hand to bat to boundary. It is not Anderson's fault that he is an attacking bowler who has to gamble on incalculable factors to take wickets. It was once the same for Matthew Hoggard: he adapted, added control and cutters to his armoury and was England's lynchpin until injuries caught up. Anderson must now do the same.
England are in a slightly curious position with their seam bowlers at the moment. Ryan Sidebottom is the pack leader, most strongly pencilled in for next year's Ashes rubber. In harness with him are the understudies - Broad and Anderson- while the experienced quartet of 2005 lurk in the shadows. England's success in forging a unit from the two distinct generations will decide their competitiveness both against South Africa this summer and Australia in 2009. Flintoff is the bowler most palpably missed, and the lack of a comparable enforcer has been shown up by the better opposition since he played his last Test in January 2007. He does not really fit into a four man attack, however, which is where his decline as a batsman, and Stuart Broad's emergence, couldbe significant. Broad has, justly, received nothing but praise for his efforts since being drafted in for the misfiring Harmison. As a batsman, in particular, he has surpassed expectations. But his bowling, for all the will in the world, is not yet at the stage where it will worry the better batsmen on flat pitches. England should not allow sentiment and Broad's youth and promise to cloud their judgement if there are better options for the here and now. Simon Jones is one such possibility: Worcestershire and England will rightly tread carefully around a player who has shown himself to be extremely fragile, but if Jones continues the devastating form he has shown so far this season, he is not the sort of player who should be left mouldering in domestic cricket for too long. A mid-series entry against South Africa probably represents the most sensible and realistic prospect for Jones, injury and form permitting.
England can take satisfaction from a conclusive end-result, although they were often anything but convincing during the course of the series. If they are to challenge South Africa, however, they must not dwell on the success and focus on what went wrong and needs to be improved. They have the essentials of a good team, with the bonus of an experienced and capable leader in Michael Vaughan. As they found out both through victory in 2005 and painful defeat 18 months later, the team which prevails is the one which brings momentum. New Zealand have given England a welcome jump start, but unless that is maintained against the South Africans, England are unlikely to match up to Australia when the Ashes rolls around in just over a year's time.
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
Sunday, 8 June 2008
Monday, 26 May 2008
Recovering England stay grounded
The three main protagonists of the final day's play at Old Trafford - Andrew Strauss, Michael Vaughan and Daniel Vettori - must have had a distinct sense of history repeating itself as England made light work, in the context of their recent and historic batting tendencies, of a target just shy of 300. Each played a part in at least one of the two similar run-chases which England executed to kick of a perfect Test summer and exalted 12 month spell back in 2004. The relative ease with which England knocked off the runs today was encouraging: rarely over the last year have they looked as convincing. But all should be wary of viewing the match as a half not a whole: possibly only West Indies and the always mercurial Pakistan could have emulated the Kiwis in trashing what appeared an unassailable position, 179 ahead on first innings with the already helpful pitch wearing.
Parallels with four years ago extend beyond just the manner and result of the games. Again Andrew Strauss was at the fore, holding together a tottering effort first up before taking hold of the run chase with a century which displayed an evolved and self-assured style. Just as was the case when he made his debut, Strauss appears to have found his level. This was a return of the player England have missed badly since he last played with comfort before the tour of Australia: the man for the made-to-measure innings. Alistair Cook played his part too on the third evening, when an early breakthrough might have sparked New Zealand and opened the way for Vettori. As it was, when he departed the target had already been whittled down from daunting to achievable: by the time Vaughan was dismissed with lunch in sight, it was England's to lose.
The form of the two senior batsmen, who as on this occasion will be integral to England's fortunes over the next year, has been heartening and together with Cook and Pietersen, the anticipated bedrocks of the batting when they have gone, they have melded into what looks a workable top order with the right mixture of experience and scope. Still, England's timorous efforts in the first innings were more indicative of recent fortunes than the assured second dig. Launching pads previously supplied by Marcus Trescothick and occasionally exploited by Andrew Flintoff are no longer attainable; England seem capable of taking control with the bat only via the scenic route, building an edifice brick-by-brick. Against the better sides they will need more than six good batsmen playing within themselves. For that to happen with the current personnel will require something of a chrysalis in Alistair Cook, who has the range of shot to become the sort of dominant partner to Strauss that Trescothick once was, even if the Essex man cannot hope to manage the belligerent dominance of his predecessor. Hopefully that will also allow Kevin Pietersen to emerge from his shell: to beat South Africa, and compete with Australia, they will need the bucaneering Pietersen, not the pontifical and burdened figure of the last six months. Ian Bell must also show progress, frustratingly lacking in the two years since he cemented his place, while Paul Collingwood, suffering from a sore shoulder and wounded pride, is most at threat, not a state of affairs he is unaccstomed to. For good or ill, the top six have again earned themselves another chance: Trent Bridge could yet be decisive, though.
Just as with the batting, the bowling is worthy but overly accomodating to the opposition. Ryan Sidebottom has continued to lead the line, even if his bowling radar has shifted rather too far to the off-side, while his opening partner James Anderson seem still caught in the vicious spin-cycle that has epitomised his Test career to date. A virtuoso performance at Nottingham, condusive to swing bowling in recent years, is a reasonable expectation: with Anderson however, that means very little in the context of the rest of the summer. Stuart Broad could do with some success on his adopted home patch as well: the strong winds and abrasive pitch made this game something of a non-starter for him and while no-one doubts his talent, he need to back it up with hard currency, something he has conclusively managed with the bat, a small piece of the jigsaw which the selectors will be loath to dislodge for now. Reliant again on Monty Panesar, who came good dramatically after a misfiring first innings effort, chalking up his 100th Test wicket with impressive haste, England lack a certitude in their seam bowling which is set to be exposed by an experienced and muscular South African batting unit later in the summer. The intimidation factor currently does not stretch much beyond Ryan Sidebottom's animalistic hair and growl, something England are reliant on unreliable bodies to remedy. Andrew Flintoff is one obvious solution; an apparently revitalised Simon Jones another. But for even one of them to appear in England's iridescent new Test kit would require an act of almost divine benevolence in which few can have much faith.
England would have hoped to arrive at Trent Bridge with two convincing wins in the bank. Instead an even series has both highlighted their deficiencies and displayed their resolve. Such a crushing blow ought to be terminal for New Zealand, although time to lick the wounds and the helpful conditions at Nottingham, second home to two of their finest ever all-rounders, mean they are in with a chance. But whichever way you spin it - and Michael Vaughan and Peter Moores will do so in a credulously positive way - England's victory at Old Trafford was a salvage job from the jaws of defeat which locked open in agonising fashion for the visitors. Potentially it is an important turning point for a team still struggling for identity a year into Peter Moores' reign. The best they can hope for now is a convincing victory to seal the deal and the hopeful return of bowling giants whose absence casts a shadow from which the team as a whole has yet to emerge.
Parallels with four years ago extend beyond just the manner and result of the games. Again Andrew Strauss was at the fore, holding together a tottering effort first up before taking hold of the run chase with a century which displayed an evolved and self-assured style. Just as was the case when he made his debut, Strauss appears to have found his level. This was a return of the player England have missed badly since he last played with comfort before the tour of Australia: the man for the made-to-measure innings. Alistair Cook played his part too on the third evening, when an early breakthrough might have sparked New Zealand and opened the way for Vettori. As it was, when he departed the target had already been whittled down from daunting to achievable: by the time Vaughan was dismissed with lunch in sight, it was England's to lose.
The form of the two senior batsmen, who as on this occasion will be integral to England's fortunes over the next year, has been heartening and together with Cook and Pietersen, the anticipated bedrocks of the batting when they have gone, they have melded into what looks a workable top order with the right mixture of experience and scope. Still, England's timorous efforts in the first innings were more indicative of recent fortunes than the assured second dig. Launching pads previously supplied by Marcus Trescothick and occasionally exploited by Andrew Flintoff are no longer attainable; England seem capable of taking control with the bat only via the scenic route, building an edifice brick-by-brick. Against the better sides they will need more than six good batsmen playing within themselves. For that to happen with the current personnel will require something of a chrysalis in Alistair Cook, who has the range of shot to become the sort of dominant partner to Strauss that Trescothick once was, even if the Essex man cannot hope to manage the belligerent dominance of his predecessor. Hopefully that will also allow Kevin Pietersen to emerge from his shell: to beat South Africa, and compete with Australia, they will need the bucaneering Pietersen, not the pontifical and burdened figure of the last six months. Ian Bell must also show progress, frustratingly lacking in the two years since he cemented his place, while Paul Collingwood, suffering from a sore shoulder and wounded pride, is most at threat, not a state of affairs he is unaccstomed to. For good or ill, the top six have again earned themselves another chance: Trent Bridge could yet be decisive, though.
Just as with the batting, the bowling is worthy but overly accomodating to the opposition. Ryan Sidebottom has continued to lead the line, even if his bowling radar has shifted rather too far to the off-side, while his opening partner James Anderson seem still caught in the vicious spin-cycle that has epitomised his Test career to date. A virtuoso performance at Nottingham, condusive to swing bowling in recent years, is a reasonable expectation: with Anderson however, that means very little in the context of the rest of the summer. Stuart Broad could do with some success on his adopted home patch as well: the strong winds and abrasive pitch made this game something of a non-starter for him and while no-one doubts his talent, he need to back it up with hard currency, something he has conclusively managed with the bat, a small piece of the jigsaw which the selectors will be loath to dislodge for now. Reliant again on Monty Panesar, who came good dramatically after a misfiring first innings effort, chalking up his 100th Test wicket with impressive haste, England lack a certitude in their seam bowling which is set to be exposed by an experienced and muscular South African batting unit later in the summer. The intimidation factor currently does not stretch much beyond Ryan Sidebottom's animalistic hair and growl, something England are reliant on unreliable bodies to remedy. Andrew Flintoff is one obvious solution; an apparently revitalised Simon Jones another. But for even one of them to appear in England's iridescent new Test kit would require an act of almost divine benevolence in which few can have much faith.
England would have hoped to arrive at Trent Bridge with two convincing wins in the bank. Instead an even series has both highlighted their deficiencies and displayed their resolve. Such a crushing blow ought to be terminal for New Zealand, although time to lick the wounds and the helpful conditions at Nottingham, second home to two of their finest ever all-rounders, mean they are in with a chance. But whichever way you spin it - and Michael Vaughan and Peter Moores will do so in a credulously positive way - England's victory at Old Trafford was a salvage job from the jaws of defeat which locked open in agonising fashion for the visitors. Potentially it is an important turning point for a team still struggling for identity a year into Peter Moores' reign. The best they can hope for now is a convincing victory to seal the deal and the hopeful return of bowling giants whose absence casts a shadow from which the team as a whole has yet to emerge.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
An unwanted repeat
Once, a series promising a duel between arguably the two most astute captains in international cricket; the world's newest, flashiest six-hitter; and two potentially top-class young bowling all-rounders, would have aroused a good deal of interest. In India, at least, the only acknowledgement of the forthcoming Test series between England and New Zealand is likely to come through people questioning what trifle has made Brendon McCullum unable to continue donning his plastic gold helmet and blast sixes like they're going out of fashion, which they soon will, if the old maxim concerning too much of a good thing holds true.
In fairness, encounters between New Zealand and England are rarely thrilling in expectation or reality. For England, there is little to be gained save avoidance of the leg rather obviously stretched out before them; while New Zealand's enjoyment of an upset would be rather more if the opposition were their near neighbours rather than one-time rulers. For fans there is the slightly pulse-deadening prospect of a re-run of a series they have just seen, with the classiest opposition batsman no longer around to entertain.
A year into the Peter Moores era, there is a slight feeling of deja-vu all-round. England's first engagement of the summer is one they are expected to win with room to spare, while the more significant test awaits them in high summer. The position of Andrew Flintoff is again dominating debate; while Michael Vaughan, having emerged from under the clouds of career-threatening injury, has stumbled headlong into the brick wall of bad form, a poor second leg of the winter compounded by his failure to register a significant score for Yorkshire in the first month of the county season. England are not quite in the disarray of a year ago, punch-drunk from a winter of ruthless beatings, but do not seem significantly better for the 12 months of recuperation, which have included their first loss in a home Test series for six years and the continuance of a dismal away record since 2005, only slightly alleviated by the spring surge which saw them come from behind to eclipse New Zealand in March.
The first-choice top-order from last year's West Indies series remains, with an ongoing game of musical chairs set to return affairs to the status quo of 2007, the captain reverting to his preferred position at one down. Dire predictions based on Vaughan's county form should be viewed with the habitual dichotomy between his performances for England and Yorkshire in mind. If no-one else does, he will back himself to score heavily against the New Zealand attack, while the desire to retain his position until next summer and have a tilt at becoming a double Ashes-winning captain, cementing his legacy as successor to Brearley in the record-books as well as the mind's eye, will be fierce. Nevertheless, the humours of England's top three do not quite balance, and unless things come good in unexpected fashion, something more drastic than the ordering of the same three players will have to change. Andrew Strauss, whose long run of poor returns still balances the scale against him, despite the ever-increasing recent credit column, is most in danger, while it would not be a bad time for Alistair Cook to show clarity of judgement outside off-stump and put together the scores with have, unusually, failed to materialise for Essex. Flintoff or no, the middle-order batting will remain as was, with no immediate threat to Pietersen, Bell or Collingwood, save the fact that the queue for batting places is longer and louder than for a while
When the fifth wicket in England's first innings of the summer falls and a white-clad batsman emerges from the Lord's pavilion, a lot will become clear on England's selection policy for the foreseeable future. Whether it is the trot of the diminutive Tim Ambrose or the giant stride of Andrew Flintoff will not be difficult to discern from the stands. Which decision the selectors will make, indeed which they should, is far less clear-cut. What is for certain is that there is no immediate prospect of Flintoff returning as a genuine all-rounder batting at 6, as he did in his golden period of 2003-5. The debate then shifts to his viability in a four-man attack, now apparently the balance favoured by coach and captain. As one of England's top fast bowlers, he would qualify for the seam-bowling triumvirate. Yet the question of his fitness to act as third seamer without significant back-up - as he never has for England before - both in terms of his troublesome ankle and wicket-taking ability will be questioned in light of the onerous workload he will face. Questions England need not seek the answers for at this stage of the summer, with Flintoff's bowling unlikely to be needed to overcome New Zealand and his return to first-class cricket still in its nascent stages. Better they wait until the one-day series, which should be more competitive, giving Flintoff the chance to put together the long series of games he has not since ankle problems subjugated his career in 2006, which have allowed him to take part in just two home Tests since he stood tall in the summer of 2005. That way his fitness can be realistically assessed, and his batting given a chance to regenerate, a prospect which his inclusion in the lower-order of the Test team would damage.
The return of Flintoff would strengthen England's lower order, although it would mean the selectors do not get to assess the batting of Stuart Broad in the key position of number 8 he will surely one day have to fill. Broad, along with new Nottinghamshire team-mate Ryan Sidebottom, is the only seamer guaranteed his place after he made the step up from one day cricket and played an important role in England's resurgence in the second half of the last series. His progress alongside that of similar New Zealand prospect Tim Southee will be one of the main points of interest and the series should give him the bit of extra experience at the top level he will need before facing the strong South African batting unit in July. Sidebottom, after his heroics in Sri Lanka and better rewarded exploits in New Zealand, is now England's first-choice seamer, a year after his return to Test level was greeted in many quarters as a temporary measure. And as Sidebottom has benefited from the transience of England's bowling attack, its lynchpin of recent years, Matthew Hoggard, has fallen foul of it. A victim of repeated injury since the Ashes two winters ago and the circumstances of England's predicament in New Zealand, Hoggard found himself on the sidelines when available to play for the first time in over four years. His replacement, James Anderson, has always been a polar opposite: flashy, expensive, unreliable. Hoggard made his point to the selectors with a nine-wicket haul for Yorkshire in their first championship game of the season, while Anderson has emulated him with Lancashire and may just have done enough to hold onto his place. Certainly Hoggard's inclusion for the England Lions seemed to suggest that the selectors were still asking for more from him, which he did not provide in the first innings.
New Zealand, their top-order batting the dictionary definition of inexperience, could very easily struggle to make significant runs in early season conditions, with all the English bowlers either on form or with a point to prove. Nevertheless, there is talent in the form of Ross Taylor and Brendon McCullum, while all of the putative top three - How, Redmond, Marshall - have made runs either against England previously or on the tour so far. The middle and lower order will be a significant obstacle as ever, the triumvirate of McCullum, Oram and Vettori all ready to blunt and blast tired bowlers. The seam attack is a contrast, all senior men, led impressively by the underrated pair of Martin and Mills, both of whom troubled England back on home soil. England, although they saved face in the last series, are still a long way short of where they want to be and can little afford to slip up against an opposition who have all the excuses and none of the expectation. Anything less than a series victory and the coach and captain axis of Moores and Vaughan will face the prospect of packing their bags and not to jet off in celebration of their first anniversary.
In fairness, encounters between New Zealand and England are rarely thrilling in expectation or reality. For England, there is little to be gained save avoidance of the leg rather obviously stretched out before them; while New Zealand's enjoyment of an upset would be rather more if the opposition were their near neighbours rather than one-time rulers. For fans there is the slightly pulse-deadening prospect of a re-run of a series they have just seen, with the classiest opposition batsman no longer around to entertain.
A year into the Peter Moores era, there is a slight feeling of deja-vu all-round. England's first engagement of the summer is one they are expected to win with room to spare, while the more significant test awaits them in high summer. The position of Andrew Flintoff is again dominating debate; while Michael Vaughan, having emerged from under the clouds of career-threatening injury, has stumbled headlong into the brick wall of bad form, a poor second leg of the winter compounded by his failure to register a significant score for Yorkshire in the first month of the county season. England are not quite in the disarray of a year ago, punch-drunk from a winter of ruthless beatings, but do not seem significantly better for the 12 months of recuperation, which have included their first loss in a home Test series for six years and the continuance of a dismal away record since 2005, only slightly alleviated by the spring surge which saw them come from behind to eclipse New Zealand in March.
The first-choice top-order from last year's West Indies series remains, with an ongoing game of musical chairs set to return affairs to the status quo of 2007, the captain reverting to his preferred position at one down. Dire predictions based on Vaughan's county form should be viewed with the habitual dichotomy between his performances for England and Yorkshire in mind. If no-one else does, he will back himself to score heavily against the New Zealand attack, while the desire to retain his position until next summer and have a tilt at becoming a double Ashes-winning captain, cementing his legacy as successor to Brearley in the record-books as well as the mind's eye, will be fierce. Nevertheless, the humours of England's top three do not quite balance, and unless things come good in unexpected fashion, something more drastic than the ordering of the same three players will have to change. Andrew Strauss, whose long run of poor returns still balances the scale against him, despite the ever-increasing recent credit column, is most in danger, while it would not be a bad time for Alistair Cook to show clarity of judgement outside off-stump and put together the scores with have, unusually, failed to materialise for Essex. Flintoff or no, the middle-order batting will remain as was, with no immediate threat to Pietersen, Bell or Collingwood, save the fact that the queue for batting places is longer and louder than for a while
When the fifth wicket in England's first innings of the summer falls and a white-clad batsman emerges from the Lord's pavilion, a lot will become clear on England's selection policy for the foreseeable future. Whether it is the trot of the diminutive Tim Ambrose or the giant stride of Andrew Flintoff will not be difficult to discern from the stands. Which decision the selectors will make, indeed which they should, is far less clear-cut. What is for certain is that there is no immediate prospect of Flintoff returning as a genuine all-rounder batting at 6, as he did in his golden period of 2003-5. The debate then shifts to his viability in a four-man attack, now apparently the balance favoured by coach and captain. As one of England's top fast bowlers, he would qualify for the seam-bowling triumvirate. Yet the question of his fitness to act as third seamer without significant back-up - as he never has for England before - both in terms of his troublesome ankle and wicket-taking ability will be questioned in light of the onerous workload he will face. Questions England need not seek the answers for at this stage of the summer, with Flintoff's bowling unlikely to be needed to overcome New Zealand and his return to first-class cricket still in its nascent stages. Better they wait until the one-day series, which should be more competitive, giving Flintoff the chance to put together the long series of games he has not since ankle problems subjugated his career in 2006, which have allowed him to take part in just two home Tests since he stood tall in the summer of 2005. That way his fitness can be realistically assessed, and his batting given a chance to regenerate, a prospect which his inclusion in the lower-order of the Test team would damage.
The return of Flintoff would strengthen England's lower order, although it would mean the selectors do not get to assess the batting of Stuart Broad in the key position of number 8 he will surely one day have to fill. Broad, along with new Nottinghamshire team-mate Ryan Sidebottom, is the only seamer guaranteed his place after he made the step up from one day cricket and played an important role in England's resurgence in the second half of the last series. His progress alongside that of similar New Zealand prospect Tim Southee will be one of the main points of interest and the series should give him the bit of extra experience at the top level he will need before facing the strong South African batting unit in July. Sidebottom, after his heroics in Sri Lanka and better rewarded exploits in New Zealand, is now England's first-choice seamer, a year after his return to Test level was greeted in many quarters as a temporary measure. And as Sidebottom has benefited from the transience of England's bowling attack, its lynchpin of recent years, Matthew Hoggard, has fallen foul of it. A victim of repeated injury since the Ashes two winters ago and the circumstances of England's predicament in New Zealand, Hoggard found himself on the sidelines when available to play for the first time in over four years. His replacement, James Anderson, has always been a polar opposite: flashy, expensive, unreliable. Hoggard made his point to the selectors with a nine-wicket haul for Yorkshire in their first championship game of the season, while Anderson has emulated him with Lancashire and may just have done enough to hold onto his place. Certainly Hoggard's inclusion for the England Lions seemed to suggest that the selectors were still asking for more from him, which he did not provide in the first innings.
New Zealand, their top-order batting the dictionary definition of inexperience, could very easily struggle to make significant runs in early season conditions, with all the English bowlers either on form or with a point to prove. Nevertheless, there is talent in the form of Ross Taylor and Brendon McCullum, while all of the putative top three - How, Redmond, Marshall - have made runs either against England previously or on the tour so far. The middle and lower order will be a significant obstacle as ever, the triumvirate of McCullum, Oram and Vettori all ready to blunt and blast tired bowlers. The seam attack is a contrast, all senior men, led impressively by the underrated pair of Martin and Mills, both of whom troubled England back on home soil. England, although they saved face in the last series, are still a long way short of where they want to be and can little afford to slip up against an opposition who have all the excuses and none of the expectation. Anything less than a series victory and the coach and captain axis of Moores and Vaughan will face the prospect of packing their bags and not to jet off in celebration of their first anniversary.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Pale England make their mark
England's just concluded series in New Zealand was about as close to a thankless task as there comes in terms of away Test rubbers. They could have won all three games at a canter and still earned only judged acclaim. That they were forced to come from one down after a baleful effort in the opening match made the overall victory a notable achievement, but the same caveats remain: New Zealand shorn of some of their best players by retirements of one sort and another; the differing amounts of Test cricket played by the two nations; the comfortable conditions, as much a home from home as exists for England abroad. But England have learned the hard way that they are no longer in a position to turn their noses up at any Test series win, let alone one away from home, a trick which had until now gone unrepeated since before the 2005 Ashes.
It is the inevitable nature of the three Test series, fast becoming the standard, that slow starters set themselves up to be losers. And after England's capitulation at Hamilton there were plenty of hawks circling, ready to issue the Do Not Resuscitate notice. Michael Vaughan responded, with a display of the good sense of timing which has long served him well. He staked his reputation on a decision to drop not only the malfunctioning Steve Harmison, but his old partner in crime, Matthew Hoggard. Half-right, boomed the majority, a pronouncement which indirectly proved correct. And against a a home side which failed to recapture the focused excellence of their first Test performance, half-right was enough for England. The expected replacement, Stuart Broad, was magnificent: well-expressed concerns that he might not be physically ready for Test cricket were proved to be foundless as he battled through mammoth spells, maintaining control of the ball and himself, while not compromising the aggression which typifies both his bowling and attitude towards batsmen. Two contrasting contributions with the bat in the 3rd Test confirmed his reputaion as a capable lower-order player, and he has earned himself a full time role with England this summer and the chance to book his place for the Ashes in the next. James Anderson, on the other hand, did nothing to advance opinion of him, producing one devastating and three middling to seriously indifferent performances. England might persist with Anderson, to see if the cycle can be broken by an extended run; should Matthew Hoggard take a stack of wickets for Yorkshire in early season however, pragmatism might well supersede the long-term vision.
Victory in the third Test, from 4-3 on the first morning, salvaged not only England's tour and to an extent their winter, but several reputations. Andrew Strauss was teetering most dangerously over the precipice: England went over a lot of heads to bring Strauss back after he missed out on the tour of Sri Lanka. They backed a trusted man heavily and were kept waiting for recompense for the best part of three Test matches, as he alternately got himself out dabbling outside off-stump and retreated entirely into his shell. The descent of his batting average into the 30s after the second Test seemed to signfiy the end as much as his self-inflicted demise with England lurching on the first morning at Napier, where two years before England would have looked first to Strauss to play the made-to-measure innings. In view of that, his innings of 177 was exceptional: the pitch may have been placid, the bowlers tired, but nothing can have been remotely simple for Strauss with his career on the line. Hopefully, having earned a stay of execution, Strauss can now move back towards the composed excellence of his early career, and, with a modified technique which relies less on the square of the wicket options and includes greater proficiency on the drive, he will be better served to succeed in the long term should he consolidate his position with the runs he still needs.
Joining him in the second innings runletting was Ian Bell, who was under no such absoulte pressure, but against whom a whispering campagin had started to develop. . Part of the gripe against Bell was the fact that he appeared to be in excellent touch but was not making the most of it. Arguably the most stylish English batsman since David Gower, he suffers the same problems of perception, his laid-back demeanour interpreted as the sign of an unconcerned mind. Important as it was in an immediate sense, his second innings hundred tells us nothing; we know Bell can score Test centuries, but until he constructs a few more innings when the runs are needed most, he will be accused of making hay only when the sun is shining. Those rays have not dazzled on Kevin Pietersen this winter as much as he and supporters are accustomed to; his century, however, did come when the going was toughest, proving he is still England's stand out performer with the bat and hopefully something which will give him the confidence to revert to the natural attacking game he increasingly shied away from as the runs dried up.
The last throes of England's winter also suited Monty Panesar, another to suffer a difficult winter. Without having done a lot wrong, he still looked increasingly like drifting into ineffectiveness, but, as is his wont, produced the goods just as the doubts were gathering in the foothills. Bowling the team to victory in the fourth innings and collecting best Test figures is all that can be asked of a spinner, even if gnarled old finger spinners would have him vary his pace more. A change in pace is exactly what Ryan Sidebottom's career has experienced over the last ten months. It is well remembered that his place was by no means copper-bottomed certainty at the beginning of the tour: successful against the flaccid West Indian batsmen, he was worthy against India and Sri Lanka, not to mention unlucky, but finished with unflattering figures. Here he at last received due reward for his efforts, having added a yard of pace and greater nous on the angle of attack to the well honed attributes of accuracy and swing long developed in county cricket. When he returned from exile to rout West Indies, concerns were expressed that he would not be able to sustain a long career at Test level and that there would not be room for him and Hoggard in the same team. The last point has been, to an extent, proved; not many would have opined Sidebottom would be the last Yorkshireman standing, however. It goes to show how quickly and decidedly perceptions and circumstances can change, something which could work for or against England as they seek to lay the platform from which they can challenge Australia in just over a year's time.
It is the inevitable nature of the three Test series, fast becoming the standard, that slow starters set themselves up to be losers. And after England's capitulation at Hamilton there were plenty of hawks circling, ready to issue the Do Not Resuscitate notice. Michael Vaughan responded, with a display of the good sense of timing which has long served him well. He staked his reputation on a decision to drop not only the malfunctioning Steve Harmison, but his old partner in crime, Matthew Hoggard. Half-right, boomed the majority, a pronouncement which indirectly proved correct. And against a a home side which failed to recapture the focused excellence of their first Test performance, half-right was enough for England. The expected replacement, Stuart Broad, was magnificent: well-expressed concerns that he might not be physically ready for Test cricket were proved to be foundless as he battled through mammoth spells, maintaining control of the ball and himself, while not compromising the aggression which typifies both his bowling and attitude towards batsmen. Two contrasting contributions with the bat in the 3rd Test confirmed his reputaion as a capable lower-order player, and he has earned himself a full time role with England this summer and the chance to book his place for the Ashes in the next. James Anderson, on the other hand, did nothing to advance opinion of him, producing one devastating and three middling to seriously indifferent performances. England might persist with Anderson, to see if the cycle can be broken by an extended run; should Matthew Hoggard take a stack of wickets for Yorkshire in early season however, pragmatism might well supersede the long-term vision.
Victory in the third Test, from 4-3 on the first morning, salvaged not only England's tour and to an extent their winter, but several reputations. Andrew Strauss was teetering most dangerously over the precipice: England went over a lot of heads to bring Strauss back after he missed out on the tour of Sri Lanka. They backed a trusted man heavily and were kept waiting for recompense for the best part of three Test matches, as he alternately got himself out dabbling outside off-stump and retreated entirely into his shell. The descent of his batting average into the 30s after the second Test seemed to signfiy the end as much as his self-inflicted demise with England lurching on the first morning at Napier, where two years before England would have looked first to Strauss to play the made-to-measure innings. In view of that, his innings of 177 was exceptional: the pitch may have been placid, the bowlers tired, but nothing can have been remotely simple for Strauss with his career on the line. Hopefully, having earned a stay of execution, Strauss can now move back towards the composed excellence of his early career, and, with a modified technique which relies less on the square of the wicket options and includes greater proficiency on the drive, he will be better served to succeed in the long term should he consolidate his position with the runs he still needs.
Joining him in the second innings runletting was Ian Bell, who was under no such absoulte pressure, but against whom a whispering campagin had started to develop. . Part of the gripe against Bell was the fact that he appeared to be in excellent touch but was not making the most of it. Arguably the most stylish English batsman since David Gower, he suffers the same problems of perception, his laid-back demeanour interpreted as the sign of an unconcerned mind. Important as it was in an immediate sense, his second innings hundred tells us nothing; we know Bell can score Test centuries, but until he constructs a few more innings when the runs are needed most, he will be accused of making hay only when the sun is shining. Those rays have not dazzled on Kevin Pietersen this winter as much as he and supporters are accustomed to; his century, however, did come when the going was toughest, proving he is still England's stand out performer with the bat and hopefully something which will give him the confidence to revert to the natural attacking game he increasingly shied away from as the runs dried up.
The last throes of England's winter also suited Monty Panesar, another to suffer a difficult winter. Without having done a lot wrong, he still looked increasingly like drifting into ineffectiveness, but, as is his wont, produced the goods just as the doubts were gathering in the foothills. Bowling the team to victory in the fourth innings and collecting best Test figures is all that can be asked of a spinner, even if gnarled old finger spinners would have him vary his pace more. A change in pace is exactly what Ryan Sidebottom's career has experienced over the last ten months. It is well remembered that his place was by no means copper-bottomed certainty at the beginning of the tour: successful against the flaccid West Indian batsmen, he was worthy against India and Sri Lanka, not to mention unlucky, but finished with unflattering figures. Here he at last received due reward for his efforts, having added a yard of pace and greater nous on the angle of attack to the well honed attributes of accuracy and swing long developed in county cricket. When he returned from exile to rout West Indies, concerns were expressed that he would not be able to sustain a long career at Test level and that there would not be room for him and Hoggard in the same team. The last point has been, to an extent, proved; not many would have opined Sidebottom would be the last Yorkshireman standing, however. It goes to show how quickly and decidedly perceptions and circumstances can change, something which could work for or against England as they seek to lay the platform from which they can challenge Australia in just over a year's time.
Sunday, 9 March 2008
Frightened England forget themselves
The pitch at Hamilton's Seddon Park may have been a lifeless beast, but to England's taildiving batsmen on the last day it must have appeared a mirror. Dead, blind to seam and spin, producing a performance not favouring England. Stephen Fleming referred to the "porridge" on the pitch; stuff England must feel like they are currently wading through, with a fair sprinkling of cement powder to boot. The final innings scenario, a target of 300 in just over 80 overs which emerged miraculously from a stodgy first three days, presented England with the chance to make a statement of positive intention. After all, no-one remembers that England's 3-0 victory against the same opposition back in 2004 came by means of two tricky 280+ run-chases; they just remember that England won every Test that summer. But if England had imagined a tense afternoon duel with New Zealand's pair of finger spinners their aspirations proved to be delusions of grandeur. By the twelfth over, when Keven Pietersen raised the drawbridge to Kyle Mills, the game was up, the facade wiped clean away.
England never had as good a batsman as Pietersen in the period before the 2005 Ashes; all of England's current top 6 can boast averages in excess of 40, which only half of the old brigade could. But that team had something infinitely more precious: the knowledge of how and when a Test match is won, the self-belief to turn the game their way at those key junctures and ultimately the luck and good fortune which invariably falls the way of a team which is winning and knows they will again. That sort of ethic and confidence allowed them to stay competitive, and win games from behind such as Johannesburg in early 2005, where Marcus Trescothick battered South Africa and Matthew Hoggard rolled them all within one day to win a game and seal a series from nowhere.
There were strange echoes in England's performance of past epochs - Matthew's Hoggard's stupendous boundary catch to put the skids under New Zealand's second innings brought back memories of a similar effort by Darren Gough at Lord's in 2000 which began West Indies' slide to 54 all out. England's slow crawl with the bat, roundly criticised, started to look a bit like the Atherton-led effort at Karachi in the winter of 2000-1, increasingly as England knocked over New Zealand to give themselves what looked a fighting chance. West Indies and Pakistan in 2000: two early series victories now regarded as important stages in the road which culminated in the Ashes being regained in 2005. There was a sense of this England team striving for their own definitive moment, the moment they stop being a shadow of 2005 England and start being their own team. Yet when an opportunity stared them in the face they wilted; clearly this is a team not ready to emerge from the shadows. And when the opposition are New Zealand, who play so little Test cricket and are a nascent outfit themselves, that is a dolorous state of affairs indeed.
New Zealand, to give them their due, fully deserved what should be a series defining victory. As ever with the bat, their bottom half proved more resilient than the top: England shaded the opening day, but from 6 wickets down 200 more runs were added, which says plenty about both teams. And while England's go-slow was in part of their own volition, the run rate would not have scraped along at 2-per-over had New Zealand not tied them down with tight lines and sharp ground-fielding. Stephen Fleming was the only batsman to achieve anything on note in the second innings of either team, his 66 filled with the beautifully timed pushes, racing to the boundary with little apparent effort, that his team and Test cricket will miss when he retires at the end of the series. To bowl a team out for 110 in 55 overs was some achievement as well, and Kyle Mills earned each of his opening four wickets, a burst which consigned England to defeat.
If any positives are to be gleaned from England's performance they are the catching, excellent after woeful efforts in Sri Lanka, and the 10-wicket haul of Ryan Sidebottom, benefiting from the improved fielding where before he had been denied. Rightly, even England have been too shame-faced to allude to them. But as Sidebottom scythed through New Zealand second time around, the shadow cast by the conspicuously and consistently absent Steve Harmison loomed large. The days where he was trusted to waste the new ball are long gone, while Michael Vaughan's decision to call on Paul Collingwood before Harmison was probably the signal that he has finally exhausted the supply of goodwill which has alone sustained his position for over a year now. Even if his bowling in Sri Lanka showed signs of a resurgence it was a wasted effort; as ever with Harmison the residual benefit was nil. His speed was down, his threat negligible, even taking into account the pitch. If there is any chance of salvaging his international career it will come by England stepping away from Harmison and forcing him to present his case like any other bowler. The current state of affairs is helping neither the bowler nor the team and although Stuart Broad is possibly a season away from being truly ready for Test cricket, England will get more from him than Harmison is currently able to provide.
With the series another of the ludicrous affairs consisting of three Tests back-to-back, England do not have time to consolidate or ponder their position at length. For the third successive series they go behind with only limited opportunity to recover and this is by far the most humiliating situation, in a series they were expected to walk. From here it goes one of two ways, either jolting them into action and a new level of performance or merely facilitating a continual demise. New Zealand, needless to say, will be up for the latter, and are bound to come hard at England with the confidence that such an emphatic win gives them. England need to find a way of brooking the tide; at the moment they seem to be hanging back, waiting for one to commit himself and set the tone. One batsman needs to be bold and take the fight to New Zealand, who are efficient and committed with the ball, but not special. That indicates Vaughan and Pietersen, England's most dominating batsmen. If one of them goes big, it should inspire confidence throughout the team. Currently, England seem to be so afraid of losing games that they have forgotten it requires confidence to win them. And until they realise that a team with defeat foremost in its mind can never succeed, the current trend will continue unabated.
England never had as good a batsman as Pietersen in the period before the 2005 Ashes; all of England's current top 6 can boast averages in excess of 40, which only half of the old brigade could. But that team had something infinitely more precious: the knowledge of how and when a Test match is won, the self-belief to turn the game their way at those key junctures and ultimately the luck and good fortune which invariably falls the way of a team which is winning and knows they will again. That sort of ethic and confidence allowed them to stay competitive, and win games from behind such as Johannesburg in early 2005, where Marcus Trescothick battered South Africa and Matthew Hoggard rolled them all within one day to win a game and seal a series from nowhere.
There were strange echoes in England's performance of past epochs - Matthew's Hoggard's stupendous boundary catch to put the skids under New Zealand's second innings brought back memories of a similar effort by Darren Gough at Lord's in 2000 which began West Indies' slide to 54 all out. England's slow crawl with the bat, roundly criticised, started to look a bit like the Atherton-led effort at Karachi in the winter of 2000-1, increasingly as England knocked over New Zealand to give themselves what looked a fighting chance. West Indies and Pakistan in 2000: two early series victories now regarded as important stages in the road which culminated in the Ashes being regained in 2005. There was a sense of this England team striving for their own definitive moment, the moment they stop being a shadow of 2005 England and start being their own team. Yet when an opportunity stared them in the face they wilted; clearly this is a team not ready to emerge from the shadows. And when the opposition are New Zealand, who play so little Test cricket and are a nascent outfit themselves, that is a dolorous state of affairs indeed.
New Zealand, to give them their due, fully deserved what should be a series defining victory. As ever with the bat, their bottom half proved more resilient than the top: England shaded the opening day, but from 6 wickets down 200 more runs were added, which says plenty about both teams. And while England's go-slow was in part of their own volition, the run rate would not have scraped along at 2-per-over had New Zealand not tied them down with tight lines and sharp ground-fielding. Stephen Fleming was the only batsman to achieve anything on note in the second innings of either team, his 66 filled with the beautifully timed pushes, racing to the boundary with little apparent effort, that his team and Test cricket will miss when he retires at the end of the series. To bowl a team out for 110 in 55 overs was some achievement as well, and Kyle Mills earned each of his opening four wickets, a burst which consigned England to defeat.
If any positives are to be gleaned from England's performance they are the catching, excellent after woeful efforts in Sri Lanka, and the 10-wicket haul of Ryan Sidebottom, benefiting from the improved fielding where before he had been denied. Rightly, even England have been too shame-faced to allude to them. But as Sidebottom scythed through New Zealand second time around, the shadow cast by the conspicuously and consistently absent Steve Harmison loomed large. The days where he was trusted to waste the new ball are long gone, while Michael Vaughan's decision to call on Paul Collingwood before Harmison was probably the signal that he has finally exhausted the supply of goodwill which has alone sustained his position for over a year now. Even if his bowling in Sri Lanka showed signs of a resurgence it was a wasted effort; as ever with Harmison the residual benefit was nil. His speed was down, his threat negligible, even taking into account the pitch. If there is any chance of salvaging his international career it will come by England stepping away from Harmison and forcing him to present his case like any other bowler. The current state of affairs is helping neither the bowler nor the team and although Stuart Broad is possibly a season away from being truly ready for Test cricket, England will get more from him than Harmison is currently able to provide.
With the series another of the ludicrous affairs consisting of three Tests back-to-back, England do not have time to consolidate or ponder their position at length. For the third successive series they go behind with only limited opportunity to recover and this is by far the most humiliating situation, in a series they were expected to walk. From here it goes one of two ways, either jolting them into action and a new level of performance or merely facilitating a continual demise. New Zealand, needless to say, will be up for the latter, and are bound to come hard at England with the confidence that such an emphatic win gives them. England need to find a way of brooking the tide; at the moment they seem to be hanging back, waiting for one to commit himself and set the tone. One batsman needs to be bold and take the fight to New Zealand, who are efficient and committed with the ball, but not special. That indicates Vaughan and Pietersen, England's most dominating batsmen. If one of them goes big, it should inspire confidence throughout the team. Currently, England seem to be so afraid of losing games that they have forgotten it requires confidence to win them. And until they realise that a team with defeat foremost in its mind can never succeed, the current trend will continue unabated.
Saturday, 1 March 2008
Discomfited England must tread carefully
Records that defined the Duncan Fletcher era have continued to tumble in the ten months since he concluded his eight year tenure as England coach. For the first time in six years, a Test series was lost at home, which, as it did then but never again under Fletcher, brought about consecutive series defeats. New Zealand was Fletcher's next port of call after an honourable 1-0 reverse in India with a weakened squad had followed the habitual Ashes thrashing in the summer of 2001. And with Peter Moores' side having failed to win a single Test over two three-match series with India and Sri Lanka, cricket's cyclical calendar has provided him with the self-same means of stopping the rot. England shared the spoils back in 2002, a scoreline which will not be much help to captain and coach in repeated in the forthcoming series.
The task Moores has been struggling with over the best part of a year in charge is a different one from that which Fletcher successfully negotiated in the first half of his spell. The problem is less a deep legacy of mismanagement and poor results, more the shadow of tangible recent success: people find it hard to comprehend how the current team, with many of the constituent parts of what was not so long ago a brilliantly successful Test team, has none of the collective power which defined that unit. Perhaps Moores' inheritance was a more significantly tainted one than acknowledged at the time: he took over a team on the slide, engaged in an 18 month decline from its highest peak. Such a trend has been long in the acceptance, with the recent results that crytallised the reality ensuring much of the fall-out has affected Moores.
In fairness, England were unfortunate in the extreme to be denied a victory in the Lord's Test against India last July. Since then, however, they have not looked like winning a match, particularly worrying the manner in which they have often slipped so quickly from contention. Many factors have contributed, but there is a bottom line and it points to the twenty opposition wickets England have been failing to take. Bowling and the beefy five-man attack formed the main plank on which Michael Vaughan and Fletcher built the successful team of 2004-5. Not one of those five remain the same force as before, even if the old opening pair will line up for the first Test at Hamilton on Wednesday. Hoggard has been unlucky with injuries over the last 12 months and could yet return to his peak; the much greater worry is Harmison. Before every Test series the story with England's fastest bowler is the same. Whether he has been playing cricket for his county, adopted South African franchsie or none at all, he turns up for practice games and bowls with neither the control or penetration required for top-level cricket. The England management rally and insist that, with some overs "in his legs", he will recover his increasingly elusive cutting edge. But Harmison is increasingly proving himself the bowling equivalent of the National Health Service, a bottomless pit into which resources, care and attention are poured lovingly but to no end. England are going so far to accomodate and carry him that it appears he has lost the ability to make a step of his own and it is possible that only a complete severance from the current amniotic catharsis will have the desired effect. Another insipid series here might well persuade the selectors that they have no option.
Andrew Strauss has been the other contentious member of the squad; for many, nothing had changed since he was justifiably dumped at the end of last year. But Strauss is clearly someone whom England are desperate to have back in the side and his is a selection made with the next three years or so in mind. England have seen the way that the loss of cornerstone presences - Trescothick, Giles, Vaughan, Flintoff - has affected the team post-2005 and evidently they feel that Strauss was one they could not simply let slip away. It is harsh on Owais Shah, perpetually supplanted as first reserve, but if Strauss makes a successful return and is scoring runs against South Africa next summer, England's selectors will be heralded for a piece of pragmatic, long term thinking. Now headed by David Graveney's ex-lieutenant Geoff Miller, who favoured Strauss for the captaincy in Australia, the selectors probably at heart see him as Michael Vaughan's natural successor too.
Every new series for England seems to bring with it the need to consolidate, find a position from where they can begin to track progress. Eventually that becomes rock bottom, which arguably was Duncan Fletcher's starting point. New Zealand, although shown by results to be a poor Test side, will nevertheless present a threat to England, with the one-day series ample evidence that success is not to be taken for granted, even if New Zealand tend only to be a real danger when in the all-black kit of their fabled rugby team. Nevertheless, they are more than capable of wielding the knife if England continue to show the disorientation and lack of killer insticnt which has typified their recent Test performances. England need the desire and determination which can only come with realisation of their current standing; no longer can they maintain the pretence that they are suffering from a particularly nasty migraine. New Zealand stand ready to exploit weaknesses if displayed: the ambush is an easy one for England to fall prey to and the trapdoor gapes wide open.
The task Moores has been struggling with over the best part of a year in charge is a different one from that which Fletcher successfully negotiated in the first half of his spell. The problem is less a deep legacy of mismanagement and poor results, more the shadow of tangible recent success: people find it hard to comprehend how the current team, with many of the constituent parts of what was not so long ago a brilliantly successful Test team, has none of the collective power which defined that unit. Perhaps Moores' inheritance was a more significantly tainted one than acknowledged at the time: he took over a team on the slide, engaged in an 18 month decline from its highest peak. Such a trend has been long in the acceptance, with the recent results that crytallised the reality ensuring much of the fall-out has affected Moores.
In fairness, England were unfortunate in the extreme to be denied a victory in the Lord's Test against India last July. Since then, however, they have not looked like winning a match, particularly worrying the manner in which they have often slipped so quickly from contention. Many factors have contributed, but there is a bottom line and it points to the twenty opposition wickets England have been failing to take. Bowling and the beefy five-man attack formed the main plank on which Michael Vaughan and Fletcher built the successful team of 2004-5. Not one of those five remain the same force as before, even if the old opening pair will line up for the first Test at Hamilton on Wednesday. Hoggard has been unlucky with injuries over the last 12 months and could yet return to his peak; the much greater worry is Harmison. Before every Test series the story with England's fastest bowler is the same. Whether he has been playing cricket for his county, adopted South African franchsie or none at all, he turns up for practice games and bowls with neither the control or penetration required for top-level cricket. The England management rally and insist that, with some overs "in his legs", he will recover his increasingly elusive cutting edge. But Harmison is increasingly proving himself the bowling equivalent of the National Health Service, a bottomless pit into which resources, care and attention are poured lovingly but to no end. England are going so far to accomodate and carry him that it appears he has lost the ability to make a step of his own and it is possible that only a complete severance from the current amniotic catharsis will have the desired effect. Another insipid series here might well persuade the selectors that they have no option.
Andrew Strauss has been the other contentious member of the squad; for many, nothing had changed since he was justifiably dumped at the end of last year. But Strauss is clearly someone whom England are desperate to have back in the side and his is a selection made with the next three years or so in mind. England have seen the way that the loss of cornerstone presences - Trescothick, Giles, Vaughan, Flintoff - has affected the team post-2005 and evidently they feel that Strauss was one they could not simply let slip away. It is harsh on Owais Shah, perpetually supplanted as first reserve, but if Strauss makes a successful return and is scoring runs against South Africa next summer, England's selectors will be heralded for a piece of pragmatic, long term thinking. Now headed by David Graveney's ex-lieutenant Geoff Miller, who favoured Strauss for the captaincy in Australia, the selectors probably at heart see him as Michael Vaughan's natural successor too.
Every new series for England seems to bring with it the need to consolidate, find a position from where they can begin to track progress. Eventually that becomes rock bottom, which arguably was Duncan Fletcher's starting point. New Zealand, although shown by results to be a poor Test side, will nevertheless present a threat to England, with the one-day series ample evidence that success is not to be taken for granted, even if New Zealand tend only to be a real danger when in the all-black kit of their fabled rugby team. Nevertheless, they are more than capable of wielding the knife if England continue to show the disorientation and lack of killer insticnt which has typified their recent Test performances. England need the desire and determination which can only come with realisation of their current standing; no longer can they maintain the pretence that they are suffering from a particularly nasty migraine. New Zealand stand ready to exploit weaknesses if displayed: the ambush is an easy one for England to fall prey to and the trapdoor gapes wide open.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
Mad, bad and dangerous to predict
It is New Zealand's knack to be a force more significant than anticipated, and between them maintaining a good level of performance with a changeling team and England failing to rise to the challenge consistency, the 3-1 scoreline will leave neither side feeling hard done by. In the final analysis, New Zealand probably have fewer problems than they had thought following an exodus of talent and experience; while Paul Collingwood's England probably have more than their two previous series had highlighted. Not once was a game won by the team batting first: England fulfilled that role in all but one of the five, three times at the behest of Daniel Vettori. And barring the fourth game where a belter of a pitch and a rollocking opening partership propelled England to 340 - and they were relieved to escape with a tie - the touring batsmen never imposed themselves sufficiently on the generally disciplined New Zealand bowlers to give themselves a realistic chance of series success. When they took to the field, and Brendon McCullum centre-stage, defeat was thrice administered in brutal and uncompromising fashion.
The exploits of McCullum, by a way the most successful bat on either side and boasting a withering overall strike rate of 128.57, contrasted at times drastically with his opposite number Phil Mustard. McCullum is a hitter, a clean striker of the ball; Mustard can do that too, but all too often tends to confuse that with the unrelated tactic of slogging, and the ugly smear which drew a line under his series with the bat may be the last England see of him for a while. One in five, which is what Mustard produced here, is simply not a good enough ratio, and it seems England's search to replace Marcus Trescothick will have to go on the road again. Alistair Cook notched two fifites, and no Englishman did better, but a strike-rate which is reaching out in vain for 70 looms large, not least in the mind of his batting partner, an unhealthy combination when it is the worrisome Ian Bell at the other end.
Kevin Pietersen had another one-day series when he seemed to be playing as if with a silencer attached to his bat: a strike rate of 73 reflects a batsman lacking confidence and bravado, two natural traits he has mislaid in the one-day game of late. England's captain gave increasing substantiation to the notion that the team's success reflects his own, the two games in which he contributed being the two Engalnd did not lose. Circumstances did not favour Owais Shah, as they seemingly never have in his international career, but he could equally have proved his worth in adversity. He has, sadly, in all likelihood batted himself out of contention for the Tests and with a congestion for lower-middle order places likely next summer, he may slip from the scene altogether.
It is through the bowlers that England have had much of their one-day success under Peter Moores, so it was no great coincidence that their failure to fire here met with defeat. Ryan Sidebottom alone was reliable; Stuart Broad had two excellent games and three shoddy ones. The pall was heaviest around James Anderson, who appeared to have graduated into England's spearhead after some excellent performances last summer. But he was ineffectual in Sri Lanka, and added profligacy this time around, New Zealand taking him for over 7 an over. It is Anderson's burden that he has to look either master or mug, and something which makes it hard for England to back him through a bad patch. Replacements are hardly falling over themselves in a rush to take his place however. Chris Tremlett is next in line, but the selectors might just hesitate with the memory of his last few performances. Back-up for the pace trio was sparse: Graeme Swann, the primary spinner, was given just five overs in the whole tour, and England went in to the last three games without a slow bowler. The men who came in, Mascarenhas and Wright, appeared low on favour with Collingwood, something which will probably spell the end for Mascarenhas, who didn't do much with the ball to deserve more opportunity, if not Wright, who flowered with the bat and sealed the tie at Napier conceding just six off the last over, his first.
Perhaps it is a sign of how far England have come that a series loss away from home, standard fare under Duncan Fletcher, meets with relative despondency. It does show, just in case people were getting ahead of themselves, that England still have some way to go, and there will be more talking points than the selectors would want when the one-day side reconvenes next summer. Top of their agenda will be the head of the batting order, something England have not had right for a while, especially since the loss of Marcus Trescothick. In the shorter form of the game, where momentum shifts can be terminal, how a team begins its innings is crucial. At the moment, England's openers reflect the team as a whole: inconsistent, ponderous and inclined to collapse. And that will have to change before England can become anything more than an occasional threat.
The exploits of McCullum, by a way the most successful bat on either side and boasting a withering overall strike rate of 128.57, contrasted at times drastically with his opposite number Phil Mustard. McCullum is a hitter, a clean striker of the ball; Mustard can do that too, but all too often tends to confuse that with the unrelated tactic of slogging, and the ugly smear which drew a line under his series with the bat may be the last England see of him for a while. One in five, which is what Mustard produced here, is simply not a good enough ratio, and it seems England's search to replace Marcus Trescothick will have to go on the road again. Alistair Cook notched two fifites, and no Englishman did better, but a strike-rate which is reaching out in vain for 70 looms large, not least in the mind of his batting partner, an unhealthy combination when it is the worrisome Ian Bell at the other end.
Kevin Pietersen had another one-day series when he seemed to be playing as if with a silencer attached to his bat: a strike rate of 73 reflects a batsman lacking confidence and bravado, two natural traits he has mislaid in the one-day game of late. England's captain gave increasing substantiation to the notion that the team's success reflects his own, the two games in which he contributed being the two Engalnd did not lose. Circumstances did not favour Owais Shah, as they seemingly never have in his international career, but he could equally have proved his worth in adversity. He has, sadly, in all likelihood batted himself out of contention for the Tests and with a congestion for lower-middle order places likely next summer, he may slip from the scene altogether.
It is through the bowlers that England have had much of their one-day success under Peter Moores, so it was no great coincidence that their failure to fire here met with defeat. Ryan Sidebottom alone was reliable; Stuart Broad had two excellent games and three shoddy ones. The pall was heaviest around James Anderson, who appeared to have graduated into England's spearhead after some excellent performances last summer. But he was ineffectual in Sri Lanka, and added profligacy this time around, New Zealand taking him for over 7 an over. It is Anderson's burden that he has to look either master or mug, and something which makes it hard for England to back him through a bad patch. Replacements are hardly falling over themselves in a rush to take his place however. Chris Tremlett is next in line, but the selectors might just hesitate with the memory of his last few performances. Back-up for the pace trio was sparse: Graeme Swann, the primary spinner, was given just five overs in the whole tour, and England went in to the last three games without a slow bowler. The men who came in, Mascarenhas and Wright, appeared low on favour with Collingwood, something which will probably spell the end for Mascarenhas, who didn't do much with the ball to deserve more opportunity, if not Wright, who flowered with the bat and sealed the tie at Napier conceding just six off the last over, his first.
Perhaps it is a sign of how far England have come that a series loss away from home, standard fare under Duncan Fletcher, meets with relative despondency. It does show, just in case people were getting ahead of themselves, that England still have some way to go, and there will be more talking points than the selectors would want when the one-day side reconvenes next summer. Top of their agenda will be the head of the batting order, something England have not had right for a while, especially since the loss of Marcus Trescothick. In the shorter form of the game, where momentum shifts can be terminal, how a team begins its innings is crucial. At the moment, England's openers reflect the team as a whole: inconsistent, ponderous and inclined to collapse. And that will have to change before England can become anything more than an occasional threat.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
England black out in game of Russian Roulette
A week may be the arbitary unit of time used to illustrate the fluid nature of circumstance and perception, but a mere two days of cricket, and short ones at that, have been all that was needed to effect volte-face on multiple fronts and leave England with cheeks reddened by the embarassment of two defeats crushingly ignominious even by the recent dismal standards of their one-day team. Words like dismal, detroe and rabble had begun to fade from the English supporter's vocabulary in regard to the one-day team, but two consecutive nostalgia nightmares have refreshed the memory with a venegance. And their opposition? Not all-conquering Australia, patrician India or swashbuckling Sri Lanka; all teams England have taken series off over the last year. Instead a team shorn of the flower of its talent; derided by its own press and public prior to the series; and crushed by England in the 20 over games. Little New Zealand, all tubby batsmen and dobbing trundlers; they have been far too good.
Perhaps the first defeat was explainable. Unable to roar from the blocks on a lightning-fast pitch and detach the English head from body by force, New Zealand took the achievable alternative: asphyxiation on a dead track, Styris and Oram constrictors in chief. 130 a total no more defendable than England's palpable failure to adapt to conditions they had failed to divine. But on no grounds can their performance at Hamilton be defended, explained or countenanced. Pietersen and Cook were laying a decent foundation at 90-2; then England were in freefall, the last 8 wickets falling for 68. To say it all went up in a puff of smoke would be to imply a sense of spectacle wholly inappropriate.
Assumptions and pre-allocated views have had to be hastily re-examined. Consider the contrasting fortunes of Ravi Bopara and Jesse Ryder. The former, despite a chastening induction to the Test arena, was still England one-day golden boy; Ryder, before he had raised a bat in anger for his country, was labelled a lardarse too fat to be playing international sport. Now, in just one innings, Ryder is said to embody the spirit of Colin Milburn; after two fraught, high body-count innings, Bopara awaits his first taste of the scrap heap. Perception has and always will be fickle when it comes to sport, but such paradigm shifts are faintly incredible, which illustrates the extraoridnary nature of the results. And therein, possibly, lies England's salvation. Their demise in both games has been so swift that there has been precious little chance to make a judged retreat to safer ground, a manouevre England have proved themselves neither good enough nor experienced enough to effect. And by fouling up on each occasion with the bat, they have given their bowlers, architects of many recent victories, no chance to make an impression on the course of either game. Possibly it is vain hope that England will deign to showcase the talent they have previosly displayed, which should make them New Zealand's betters. For New Zealand will continue to be good; the question is, will England continue to make them look worldbeaters?
I hear the vitriol already. English arrogance! What credit to New Zealand? Plenty, in fact. They have not only outdone England by several elongated heads in every facet of the game, but have effected a comeback only the most blinkered Kiwi tub-thumper would have forecasted after they submitted to double defeat in the Twenty20 series and England looked rampant. The bowling has been incisive, tight and to plan; twice they have given England masterclasses on batting according to conditions. More than anything, their fielding has sparkled; England have been getting precious little themselves with the bat, but that next to nothing has been given away just augments the torture. Compare with England, a tawdry mess of run-outs and dropped catches.
Repeated humiliation for England has opened up debate over issues which looked case-closed when they overcame India at the tail-end of last summer. Ian Bell, batting star of that series for the home team, no longer looks secure at first drop, having followed an anonymous series in Sri Lanka with two no-shows here. Kevin Pietersen, whom many would have occupy Bell's slot, looks in no state for the promotion and a shadow of his dominating best. The middle-order, once a lone bastion of reliablity, has been experimenting detrimentally with the binary system. A fairly inflexible 16-man squad means England are more-or-less stuck with what they've got, although Ravi Bopara seems sure to lose his place to Dimi Mascarenhas. There is equally little room for manouevre in the series, in that familiar position of two down with three to come. The management will be stressing the need for a performance in the forthcoming game; the rest are just screaming for a result. There is little left in the realm of possiblity with which England's one-day side can surprise us. Dating from twelve months ago, there have been victories against opposition as unlikely as Australia, India and Sri Lanka. Right now, they are supping from the well of despair visited in the period preceding those results and again at the World Cup. All told, a dizzying cocktail of brilliance and crapulence, and a sequence which they look unready to bring any sort of order to.
Perhaps the first defeat was explainable. Unable to roar from the blocks on a lightning-fast pitch and detach the English head from body by force, New Zealand took the achievable alternative: asphyxiation on a dead track, Styris and Oram constrictors in chief. 130 a total no more defendable than England's palpable failure to adapt to conditions they had failed to divine. But on no grounds can their performance at Hamilton be defended, explained or countenanced. Pietersen and Cook were laying a decent foundation at 90-2; then England were in freefall, the last 8 wickets falling for 68. To say it all went up in a puff of smoke would be to imply a sense of spectacle wholly inappropriate.
Assumptions and pre-allocated views have had to be hastily re-examined. Consider the contrasting fortunes of Ravi Bopara and Jesse Ryder. The former, despite a chastening induction to the Test arena, was still England one-day golden boy; Ryder, before he had raised a bat in anger for his country, was labelled a lardarse too fat to be playing international sport. Now, in just one innings, Ryder is said to embody the spirit of Colin Milburn; after two fraught, high body-count innings, Bopara awaits his first taste of the scrap heap. Perception has and always will be fickle when it comes to sport, but such paradigm shifts are faintly incredible, which illustrates the extraoridnary nature of the results. And therein, possibly, lies England's salvation. Their demise in both games has been so swift that there has been precious little chance to make a judged retreat to safer ground, a manouevre England have proved themselves neither good enough nor experienced enough to effect. And by fouling up on each occasion with the bat, they have given their bowlers, architects of many recent victories, no chance to make an impression on the course of either game. Possibly it is vain hope that England will deign to showcase the talent they have previosly displayed, which should make them New Zealand's betters. For New Zealand will continue to be good; the question is, will England continue to make them look worldbeaters?
I hear the vitriol already. English arrogance! What credit to New Zealand? Plenty, in fact. They have not only outdone England by several elongated heads in every facet of the game, but have effected a comeback only the most blinkered Kiwi tub-thumper would have forecasted after they submitted to double defeat in the Twenty20 series and England looked rampant. The bowling has been incisive, tight and to plan; twice they have given England masterclasses on batting according to conditions. More than anything, their fielding has sparkled; England have been getting precious little themselves with the bat, but that next to nothing has been given away just augments the torture. Compare with England, a tawdry mess of run-outs and dropped catches.
Repeated humiliation for England has opened up debate over issues which looked case-closed when they overcame India at the tail-end of last summer. Ian Bell, batting star of that series for the home team, no longer looks secure at first drop, having followed an anonymous series in Sri Lanka with two no-shows here. Kevin Pietersen, whom many would have occupy Bell's slot, looks in no state for the promotion and a shadow of his dominating best. The middle-order, once a lone bastion of reliablity, has been experimenting detrimentally with the binary system. A fairly inflexible 16-man squad means England are more-or-less stuck with what they've got, although Ravi Bopara seems sure to lose his place to Dimi Mascarenhas. There is equally little room for manouevre in the series, in that familiar position of two down with three to come. The management will be stressing the need for a performance in the forthcoming game; the rest are just screaming for a result. There is little left in the realm of possiblity with which England's one-day side can surprise us. Dating from twelve months ago, there have been victories against opposition as unlikely as Australia, India and Sri Lanka. Right now, they are supping from the well of despair visited in the period preceding those results and again at the World Cup. All told, a dizzying cocktail of brilliance and crapulence, and a sequence which they look unready to bring any sort of order to.
Friday, 8 February 2008
Efficiency the essence for improved England
New Zealand can be a frustrating opposition in more ways than one. Not only does their battling style tend to pose more problems than their overall talent might suggest; but such is their nature that there are few plaudits to be gained in victory and much ridicule to be suffered in defeat. That tends to be more true of their Test side than limited-overs outfit, with the shorter, more formulaic game logically suiting their gameplan with a strong emphasis on collective achievement in the absence of any great deal of class. But after a World Cup in which they made the last four and defeated England in the pool-stages, New Zealand have been in decline; while England, who made absolutely no impression on that tournament, have had a pleasantly surprising amount of success as their Test form has stuttered.
Without Fleming, Bond and McMillan, what was a competitive, dangerous team begins to look more electrically-powered milk float than grinding four-wheel drive. Having lost Bond, who had to bear the weight of frequent injury along with the responsibility of being a lone spearhead, and with James Franklin sidelined, there remains very little in New Zealand's bowling stock which should be capable of worrying England. Kyle Mills and Jacob Oram maybe; Daniel Vettori for sure if he can shake off an ankle niggle. But the back-up of Chris Martin, Michael Mason and Paul Hitchcock looks on the innocuous side of powderpuff. Each is in his 34th year and boasts an unfavourable ODI record; they are in a way typical of New Zealand, the one country unwilling to give up on the medium-pacer. To be fair, if there is anywhere left in the world where the redoubtable trundler can prosper, it is the land of the long white cloud; but if England capitulate, there will be much vitriol from press and public and hand-wringing from players and management.
And if England had continued in the same vein after the World Cup, it would be a very possible outcome. But evidently even they have got bored of being pants at one-day cricket, and the results under Peter Moores have generally been heartening, giving the impression that England have finally started to move forward in the more proscriptive form of the game after a long period under Duncan Fletcher when they seemed to go only backwards or sideways. Bowling has been the primary reason for the success against India and Sri Lanka; James Anderson is at home with the new white ball in his hand, complemented by Ryan Sidebottom's swing and hustle and vertical and lateral movement from Stuart Broad. Graeme Swann balances the team nicely with both bat and ball, although he will need to prove his flighted and well-spun off breaks are effective away from the slow tracks of Dambulla and Colombo where he won his place.
The opening pair retain a temporary guise, with Cook and Mustard set to resume a partnership which failed to flower in some admittedly averse conditions in Sri Lanka, but which will not survive a lack of success over 5 more games. With Marcus Trescothick set never to return, England badly need Cook to become a force for them in ODIs, primarily because there is really no-one else, evidenced by the fact he has been partnered by no specialist opener since returning to the team last May. On the positive side, Mustard could be the man to give England the sort of quick runs up-front no-one bar Trescothick has recently, and maybe even tout for a place in the Test team if he hits the jackpot. At the same time, he is keeping out a very useful one-day batsman in Tim Ambrose and will not keep his place for long on the basis of strike-rate and a quick wit.
The other area of debate in the line-up is over the No.7 position, currently in possession of Ravi Bopara. He appears deserving of a place, but there remains the essential problem that, as someone who majors on batting, he is occupying a position which is the preserve of a bowling all-rounder. As it stands, he is not having much chance to influence the game with either bat or ball; England are grateful for his presence when the main batting fails, but otherwise he tends to cut an anonymous figure, especially as Collingwood's improved medium-pace means he is really a sixth bowler. Following the double success in the 20 over games, Dimi Mascarenhas has also put his name forward; his chance was long in the coming, and despite some flickers, not least smiting Yuvraj Singh for five consecutive sixes, he looked to be surplus to requirements having watched the games in Sri Lanka from the pavilion. But Mascarenhas is evidently not one to go quietly, and emphasised his case with another burst of sixes in the first game and two tight four over spells. England will have to decide if they want the batting safety-net, fielding excellence and youthful promise of Bopara or the superior bowling and boundary hitting of the Hampshire man. With Mascarenhas, the batting is more fragile, especially if wickets tumble; on the flip-side, he has the ability to accelarate at the death more than perhaps any other English bat.
It should not matter too much against what looked a baleful New Zealand outfit in the first matches of the tour. Jacob Oram and Daniel Vettori should return to increase the class and depth of both batting and bowling, but England remain favourites. Of course, no team is better than them at subverting such brash assumptions, but unless the home side finds unforseen levels of performance, a series loss would be of their own design. Hopefully those days will continue to be associated with England past rather than present, and they will record the comfortable victory the gulf in talent indicates is likely. Following impressive displays at home to India and more so in Sri Lanka, less can hardly be expected.
Without Fleming, Bond and McMillan, what was a competitive, dangerous team begins to look more electrically-powered milk float than grinding four-wheel drive. Having lost Bond, who had to bear the weight of frequent injury along with the responsibility of being a lone spearhead, and with James Franklin sidelined, there remains very little in New Zealand's bowling stock which should be capable of worrying England. Kyle Mills and Jacob Oram maybe; Daniel Vettori for sure if he can shake off an ankle niggle. But the back-up of Chris Martin, Michael Mason and Paul Hitchcock looks on the innocuous side of powderpuff. Each is in his 34th year and boasts an unfavourable ODI record; they are in a way typical of New Zealand, the one country unwilling to give up on the medium-pacer. To be fair, if there is anywhere left in the world where the redoubtable trundler can prosper, it is the land of the long white cloud; but if England capitulate, there will be much vitriol from press and public and hand-wringing from players and management.
And if England had continued in the same vein after the World Cup, it would be a very possible outcome. But evidently even they have got bored of being pants at one-day cricket, and the results under Peter Moores have generally been heartening, giving the impression that England have finally started to move forward in the more proscriptive form of the game after a long period under Duncan Fletcher when they seemed to go only backwards or sideways. Bowling has been the primary reason for the success against India and Sri Lanka; James Anderson is at home with the new white ball in his hand, complemented by Ryan Sidebottom's swing and hustle and vertical and lateral movement from Stuart Broad. Graeme Swann balances the team nicely with both bat and ball, although he will need to prove his flighted and well-spun off breaks are effective away from the slow tracks of Dambulla and Colombo where he won his place.
The opening pair retain a temporary guise, with Cook and Mustard set to resume a partnership which failed to flower in some admittedly averse conditions in Sri Lanka, but which will not survive a lack of success over 5 more games. With Marcus Trescothick set never to return, England badly need Cook to become a force for them in ODIs, primarily because there is really no-one else, evidenced by the fact he has been partnered by no specialist opener since returning to the team last May. On the positive side, Mustard could be the man to give England the sort of quick runs up-front no-one bar Trescothick has recently, and maybe even tout for a place in the Test team if he hits the jackpot. At the same time, he is keeping out a very useful one-day batsman in Tim Ambrose and will not keep his place for long on the basis of strike-rate and a quick wit.
The other area of debate in the line-up is over the No.7 position, currently in possession of Ravi Bopara. He appears deserving of a place, but there remains the essential problem that, as someone who majors on batting, he is occupying a position which is the preserve of a bowling all-rounder. As it stands, he is not having much chance to influence the game with either bat or ball; England are grateful for his presence when the main batting fails, but otherwise he tends to cut an anonymous figure, especially as Collingwood's improved medium-pace means he is really a sixth bowler. Following the double success in the 20 over games, Dimi Mascarenhas has also put his name forward; his chance was long in the coming, and despite some flickers, not least smiting Yuvraj Singh for five consecutive sixes, he looked to be surplus to requirements having watched the games in Sri Lanka from the pavilion. But Mascarenhas is evidently not one to go quietly, and emphasised his case with another burst of sixes in the first game and two tight four over spells. England will have to decide if they want the batting safety-net, fielding excellence and youthful promise of Bopara or the superior bowling and boundary hitting of the Hampshire man. With Mascarenhas, the batting is more fragile, especially if wickets tumble; on the flip-side, he has the ability to accelarate at the death more than perhaps any other English bat.
It should not matter too much against what looked a baleful New Zealand outfit in the first matches of the tour. Jacob Oram and Daniel Vettori should return to increase the class and depth of both batting and bowling, but England remain favourites. Of course, no team is better than them at subverting such brash assumptions, but unless the home side finds unforseen levels of performance, a series loss would be of their own design. Hopefully those days will continue to be associated with England past rather than present, and they will record the comfortable victory the gulf in talent indicates is likely. Following impressive displays at home to India and more so in Sri Lanka, less can hardly be expected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)