England has a big problem against Sri Lanka in the present ODI Series. Their selection of Alastair Cook as their new ODI Captain has made him a cast-iron pick in the team, and placed the rest of the batting order in a difficult position, unless he can score at a quicker rate, especially in the critical powerplay overs.
Cook’s previous level of performance has suggested that he is incapable of maximising the powerplay opportunities, an aspect of England’s one day cricket which has been an achilles heel since the new regulation was introduced a couple of years ago.
Admirable fellow that Alastair is, and future Test Captain he may be, but I don’t believe he is the answer to England’s needs at the top of the batting order in ODI Cricket. However, I think he will be given every opportunity to ‘grow’ into the role and prove his worth.
Scoring a hundred at Lord’s yesterday, and a half-century in the previous match at Headingley only masks the real problem – it is not that he isn’t a good playe, and capable of scoring a century. It is that England needs explosive players at the top of the order if the national side is going to compete in the modern game, let alone be successful or consistently dominant, which should be the goal. Scoring well against Bangladesh on his last outing as England Captain (16 months ago) should not add weight to his case for further selection. I don’t understand how the England selectors can decide he wasn’t good enough to make a sqaud of 30 for the ICC World Cup last March, but now be regarded as a cast-iron pick in a team of eleven players without having played one day cricket in the meantime?
I hope he proves me wrong because I am a big fan of him, both as a man, and as a Test batsman. I hope, in future that he can score sufficiently quickly to not compromise the steady play of Jonathan Trott, who has played superbly for England recently, in both forms of the game. Trott’s record (average 50 plus with 3 ODI centuries) and strike rate (78+) is superior to Cook’s, so maybe Trott should not be sacrficied, should there be a culling process if the batting order continues to mal-function.
At present, if Cook opens, it is almost impossible to include Trott in the team. Unless it is a poor surface, and a competitve total is the goal, rather than the normal circumstance which requires both batsmen to dominate the bowling on the usually ‘batsman-friendly’ pitches on which 50 over cricket is invariably played around the world today. Two players who play a similar ‘accumulating’ game cannot be accommodated in the same team, let alone be part of a likely scenario of batting together, such as Cook and Trott are scheduled to do at numbers 1 and 3 in the current England batting order.
A re-think on the strategy and batting order may be an urgent requirement if England is to come back in the series. Sri Lanka meanwhile, look a powerful batting unit. They look capable of posting very big scores, and also chasing down anything they are set.
For my money, Kevin Pietersen and Eoin Morgan have to get to the wicket as early as possible once a decent start has been established, and bat as many balls as they possibly can. They need to start making centuries from positions 3 and 4 in the order if England is to reverse their fortunes in the 50 over game. If not, then others need to be picked to see if they can, in turn, perform to the required level.
Pietersen is England’s best player, but his ODI record is poor in the last two years. Admittedly injury has accompanied him in this period, but he needs to produce big innings on a regular basis if he wants to be regarded as a top player in world cricket. The quality of player which he likes to regarded alongside, had a track record of producing consistently ‘big’ performances over time, and not just over a few exceptional seasons. He is capable of destroying the best attacks in the world, and not just for an hour. He has to have the dicipline to bat thropugh ‘the gears’, and assess risk far better than he has been doing recently. Graham Gooch was excellent at doing this for club and country – Pietersen need only look across the dressing room or down the end of the nets for a reminder of how to do it. Gooch won ‘big’ matches for his teams. At present, Pietersen isn’t.
I believe Morgan could become a phenomenon in ODI Cricket. If he doesn’t achieve his potential, then someone else has to bat four, and allow Morgan to be a ‘clever’ contributor in more of a support role at number 5. I believe he can do much more damage if he has the opportunity to get in and play a big innings at number 4.
For England to succeed in International ODI Tournaments they need to invest opportunity in the right people – otherwise there will be a continuation of an opportunity cost to others, who given some scope, may have proved they could do better. Darren Stevens is arguably the most dangerous ‘match-winning’ batsman in county cricket, possessing the ability to hit sixes with relative ease – something others who gain selection, seem totally incapable of doing. Stevens has never played an ODI despite him being the catalyst to Kent winning plenty of important ‘tight’ matches over the past six years.
Is Nottinghamshire’s young tyro Alex Hales a better investment than one of Cook or Trott in the top three. Hales has an outrageous ability to hit boundaries. Whether he can do it against a higher quality of bowling, and in a pressurised environment under the media microscope of international cricket, who knows? One thing is for sure, if he doesn’t get the chance, (like Darren Stevens) we will never know.
Much as the selectors have done a good job in picking a settled side for Test Cricket, and helping a player like Alastair Cook feel better about himself during an extended lean period allowing his best form to emerge, the same policy of sticking with certain individuals is not yet paying dividends in ODI Cricket.
The records of Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell do not stack up based on their ability, and number of international appearances. Either they need to produce in the front-line batting positions, or it is time to invest opportunity in others. Batting Bell at number 6, and seeing him score at less than a run-a-ball on a good batting pitch at Lord’s was pitiful. At best he was mis-cast, or at worst, he failed to read the situation and display the necessary ability to force the pace. Either way it must never happen again.
Leicestershire’s James Taylor looks a very good prospect. Is it time to unleash some precocious youngsters onto the biggest stage? How about Marcus Trescothick being asked to come out of international retirement to help England develop a winning culture by playing home internationals only? Short-sighted? Maybe, but not if it kick-starts the national side into playing with greater purpose and batting with a more aggressive intent. Others can feed off this mentality, just as Somerset has in recent seasons. As I understand it, Trescothick’s retirement was due to stress-related illness as a consequence of being away from home, and not the stress of performing at international level. Maybe he, and England’s supporters, can be offered a chance to be re-united when the team is based in the UK ?
Peersonally, I would have lioked to have seen Andrew Strauss carry on. He was batting bettter than ever before, and his leadership of the team was critical to its evolution. Even if he didn’t see past playing for one or two seasons, there is logic in taking the team to the next destination on its journey to the next ICC World Cup in Australia in four years time. Will this decision prove to be the beginning of the end for Strauss? I believe one never be ‘half-pregnant’ in life. Either one commits fully to the job of being England Captain or one doesn’t. I don’t know his pewrsonal circumstances, other than I have found him and his wife to be delightful company on the several occasions I have been with them, but I fear for him right now. Has the decision to step down affected his psyche, and subsequent form? Can he regain the performance mindset needed if he has one eye on the future?
Too often, England has ‘experimented’ with players at ODI level, only to discover that after 10-40 opportunities, the players are ill-equipped to succeed. Most recently, the obsession has been for the wicket-keeper to be selected as opening batsman. Craig Kieswetter is the latest incumbent (in his second coronation). Matt Prior was recalled for the World Cup on the eve of the tournament at the expense of Steven Davies, who himself had been recalled for the Australian Tour after Kieswetter had failed to take his initial opportunities. Previously, Phil Mustard, Chris Read, Paul Nixon, James Foster, Geraint Jones, and Tim Ambrose have all been tried behind the stumps to follow the incomparable ‘all-rounder’ Alec Stewart.
Chopping and changing personnel only happens if players are not up to standard. There needs to be greater rigour in the selection process, and that can only come about if the type, and standard of domestic one day cricket more closely mirrors the international game. The selectors need help there from the administrators to ensure the support structure is better geared to filtering out the best from the rest on highly-credible performance levels, rather than hunches.
Meanwhile, in my critique of the bowling, I believe that history reveals that it lacks genuine wicket-taking ability in all conditions. With this in mind, is England picking its’ five best, and in-form, bowlers ?
James Anderson is truly world-class in English conditions but has proved far less effective on the sub-continent. Graeme Swann is a world-class bowler in all conditions. Stuart Broad has the potential to be a world-class bowler and significant contributor to the lower/middle order with the bat. Tim Bresnan is a solid all-rounder with a no-nonsense temperament. This leaves one bowling spot.
I would go for an out and out quality bowler and ‘weaken’ the batting by putting the pressure on the main batsmen to get the job done rather than selecting a team which bats ‘deep’. Chris Tremlett? Monty Panesar? Steven Finn? All three are capable of dismissing the best batsmen in the world and the best way to stem the flow of runs is to take wicketrs at the start, and in the middle of an innings.
For too long, in my opinion, England has selected players who were believed to be ‘all-rounders’ but they proved to be lacking in quality with both bat and ball to succeed against the best. Luke Wright, Jamie Dalrymple, Ravi Bopara, Gareth Batty, Jeremy Snape, Alex Tudor, Mark Alleyne, Dougie Brown, Adam Hollioake, Ben Hollioake,Vince Wells, Matthew Fleming, Neil Smith, Chris Lewis, Liam Plunkett, Ronnie Irani, Dimi Mascarenhas, James Tredwell, Mike Yardy, Chris Woakes, Ajmal Shahzad are all admirable cricketers in their own way, but their England ODI selection was often been due to their ability to add something extra in a secondary discipline, such has the focus in the past decade been on developing ‘multi-disciplined’ cricketers. However, if an individual is lacking the necessary top quality in one’s primary skill, then the best international opposition will expose this over time. Maybe Samit Patel or Ravi Bopara’s batting can confound this trend in the future. I hope so, as both offer something different with their ‘wristiness’ at the crease. There can be no substitute for class when selecting players to play at the highest level of the game.
I would pick the best wicket-keeper in the country. Chris Read is adept at striking the ball for boundaries in ‘odd’ places in the final overs; has the experience of keeping to Broad and Swann at domestic level; is Hales’ County Captain; has experience of ODI Cricket whilst also being a more mature performer than when he was first selected. If not Read, then James Foster who comes a close second in my opinion but lacks some of Read’s invention with the bat despite being a marginally superior batsman. A close call, but what a golden problem to have!
So here goes, my 12 for the next game (ignnoring the fact that a squad is already in place):
Trescothick; Hales; Pietersen; Morgan; Taylor; Read; Bresnan; Broad; Swann; Tremlett/Panesar; Anderson.
Radical? My logic is based on a mix of youth and experience and selecting the best bowlers, the most dangerous and dynamic batsmen and the best wicket-keeper who is also the best lower-order batsman amongst his contemporaries. Logical?
Any takers?
