Batting failure to blame for England's one-day woes
The one-day match between England and Australia on Saturday was billed as an appetiser for the Ashes. I'm sure I'm not the only person who was looking forward to it and disappointed with the outcome. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Both captains were eager to play down the relevance of the contest to the main event and rightly so. While England's test team seems to go from strength to strength, the one-day side is a complete and utter shambles, and to my mind the fault lies with the calibre of the personnel selected, particularly in the batting department.
It seems patently obvious that the selectors are not picking players who are capable of putting the most runs on the board, and even where they are getting it right they are playing in the wrong position.
For the first 18 overs on Saturday it seemed as if this might not be the case for once. Strauss and Bell played very nicely to put on 83, and Bell's confidence against a side he struggled against last year was one of the few positives. Both of their dismissals, however, were disappointing and England really needed one of them to go on to get a hundred. Strauss' reaction to his dismissal was evidence that he knew that too. He can only have felt worse about it later after England contrived to lose all 10 wickets for a pathetic 86 runs.
Sending in Pietersen at no 3 was a good move I felt, as the idea was to give him the maximum overs to get a big score and capitalise on the openers' success in wearing down the bowlers. Sadly it didn't pay off and full credit to the bowler for bowling to a plan. There is a theory that many of the world's best bowlers have started to work KP out. This would seem unlikely however, given that he is such an unorthodox player. The idea that the pressure of being depended on to get a big score is getting to him seems much more likely.
Sending in Flintoff at 4 was not such a bright idea, especially given his lack of match practise. As he walked to the crease I feared that if he was out cheapy England would have lost the two players capable of accelerating the scoring and be dead in the water, and that is exactly what happened.
As regards the man who came in at number 5, I have no idea what he is doing in the team, let alone so high up in the batting order. I don't know what Michael Yardy's credentials in county cricket are, but his selection seems like yet another example of England's penchant for picking "bits and pieces" cricketers in one-day cricket. This policy has never paid dividends and never will.
Trescothick would have been an automatic selection had he been available, and will walk back into the team as soon as he is ready to do so. England missed a trick by not giving a young batsman a run in the one-day team to find out if he can make the same impression as he has at test level, namely Alastair Cook.
Cook would have at least occupied the crease and would almost certainly have put some runs on the board and that is what England are consistently failing to do at the moment. If they carry on getting bowled out cheaply and not batting the full 50 overs they are never going to compete in one-day cricket. Mal Loye of Lancashire may have been a better bet, or even the mercurial Mark Ramprakash, who has enjoyed such an excellent season in county cricket. Giving him the opportunity to end his international career in a blaze of glory could well have been worth the risk.
Sending Flintoff in at 5 always seems a better option, as it can strike the fear of God into the opposition knowing that such a big hitter will be coming in when 3 wickets have fallen. It gives Freddie the freedom to smash the old ball around the ground and take on the slow bowlers (a department where Australia are found wanting in one-day cricket).
As for sending in Collingwood at six when he has only Read and the tail to support him, that is just insanity. England's most dependable middle-order batsman in one-day cricket is in the form of his life and has enjoyed an excellent 12 months. To give him so little opportunity to score his runs is just crazy, and he must have felt robbed of the chance to get a big score against the Aussies and stake a claim for a place in the final XI that takes the field at Brisbane on November 23.
As for the bowlers, you can't really blame them for not getting runs. It is not their job. The most important thing is to pick bowlers who are going to take wickets (which begs the question, when can Panesar expect a call-up to the one day side?). Bowling out the opposition is always the way matches are won, irrespective of the format. And it is the job of the batsmen to put enough runs on the board to give them a decent chance of doing that. If they only have small totals to defend, they are always going to be up against it. Even if they have a modest total to defend, it is not impossible to do so as West Indies recently proved against Australia.
My only real criticism of the bowlers is of Steve Harmison, or more to the point, of the way he is being handled. Unless he can pull his socks up he shouldn't play. Jon Lewis should take his place for the (almost) dead rubber against West Indies on Saturday. He may lack Harmison's pace, but at least his radar is always switched on. The selectors seem to be condoning Harmison's inability to do his job in one-day cricket by refusing to drop him and this is wrong. No player is bigger than the team and England are in no position to carry passengers.
Saj Mahmood's bowling and in particular his dismissal of Gilchrist augurs well for the Ashes. His confidence must have soared after receiving the man-of-the-match award in the last ODI against Pakistan, and there is every reason to hope that he can be a major force against an Australian batting line-up that features too many players who are the wrong side of 35. Winning a one-day match is one thing; how their bodies stand up to the rigours of a five-day match against a potent pace attack remains to be seen.
Copyright © Jonathan Weedon, October 2006
Both captains were eager to play down the relevance of the contest to the main event and rightly so. While England's test team seems to go from strength to strength, the one-day side is a complete and utter shambles, and to my mind the fault lies with the calibre of the personnel selected, particularly in the batting department.
It seems patently obvious that the selectors are not picking players who are capable of putting the most runs on the board, and even where they are getting it right they are playing in the wrong position.
For the first 18 overs on Saturday it seemed as if this might not be the case for once. Strauss and Bell played very nicely to put on 83, and Bell's confidence against a side he struggled against last year was one of the few positives. Both of their dismissals, however, were disappointing and England really needed one of them to go on to get a hundred. Strauss' reaction to his dismissal was evidence that he knew that too. He can only have felt worse about it later after England contrived to lose all 10 wickets for a pathetic 86 runs.
Sending in Pietersen at no 3 was a good move I felt, as the idea was to give him the maximum overs to get a big score and capitalise on the openers' success in wearing down the bowlers. Sadly it didn't pay off and full credit to the bowler for bowling to a plan. There is a theory that many of the world's best bowlers have started to work KP out. This would seem unlikely however, given that he is such an unorthodox player. The idea that the pressure of being depended on to get a big score is getting to him seems much more likely.
Sending in Flintoff at 4 was not such a bright idea, especially given his lack of match practise. As he walked to the crease I feared that if he was out cheapy England would have lost the two players capable of accelerating the scoring and be dead in the water, and that is exactly what happened.
As regards the man who came in at number 5, I have no idea what he is doing in the team, let alone so high up in the batting order. I don't know what Michael Yardy's credentials in county cricket are, but his selection seems like yet another example of England's penchant for picking "bits and pieces" cricketers in one-day cricket. This policy has never paid dividends and never will.
Trescothick would have been an automatic selection had he been available, and will walk back into the team as soon as he is ready to do so. England missed a trick by not giving a young batsman a run in the one-day team to find out if he can make the same impression as he has at test level, namely Alastair Cook.
Cook would have at least occupied the crease and would almost certainly have put some runs on the board and that is what England are consistently failing to do at the moment. If they carry on getting bowled out cheaply and not batting the full 50 overs they are never going to compete in one-day cricket. Mal Loye of Lancashire may have been a better bet, or even the mercurial Mark Ramprakash, who has enjoyed such an excellent season in county cricket. Giving him the opportunity to end his international career in a blaze of glory could well have been worth the risk.
Sending Flintoff in at 5 always seems a better option, as it can strike the fear of God into the opposition knowing that such a big hitter will be coming in when 3 wickets have fallen. It gives Freddie the freedom to smash the old ball around the ground and take on the slow bowlers (a department where Australia are found wanting in one-day cricket).
As for sending in Collingwood at six when he has only Read and the tail to support him, that is just insanity. England's most dependable middle-order batsman in one-day cricket is in the form of his life and has enjoyed an excellent 12 months. To give him so little opportunity to score his runs is just crazy, and he must have felt robbed of the chance to get a big score against the Aussies and stake a claim for a place in the final XI that takes the field at Brisbane on November 23.
As for the bowlers, you can't really blame them for not getting runs. It is not their job. The most important thing is to pick bowlers who are going to take wickets (which begs the question, when can Panesar expect a call-up to the one day side?). Bowling out the opposition is always the way matches are won, irrespective of the format. And it is the job of the batsmen to put enough runs on the board to give them a decent chance of doing that. If they only have small totals to defend, they are always going to be up against it. Even if they have a modest total to defend, it is not impossible to do so as West Indies recently proved against Australia.
My only real criticism of the bowlers is of Steve Harmison, or more to the point, of the way he is being handled. Unless he can pull his socks up he shouldn't play. Jon Lewis should take his place for the (almost) dead rubber against West Indies on Saturday. He may lack Harmison's pace, but at least his radar is always switched on. The selectors seem to be condoning Harmison's inability to do his job in one-day cricket by refusing to drop him and this is wrong. No player is bigger than the team and England are in no position to carry passengers.
Saj Mahmood's bowling and in particular his dismissal of Gilchrist augurs well for the Ashes. His confidence must have soared after receiving the man-of-the-match award in the last ODI against Pakistan, and there is every reason to hope that he can be a major force against an Australian batting line-up that features too many players who are the wrong side of 35. Winning a one-day match is one thing; how their bodies stand up to the rigours of a five-day match against a potent pace attack remains to be seen.
Copyright © Jonathan Weedon, October 2006
posted by Jon | 8:22 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home