Y Failure?

As England slump to yet another embarrassing T20 series loss, it's hard to avoid looking at the habitual and underlying issues which lead to their constant failure.

It's an easy out to say 'none of our players play in the IPL!'. No, but our top 3 of Lumb, Hales and Wright all recently played in the Big Bash, and did fairly well. We also won the World T20 cup four years ago despite only having one player in the squad playing in an overseas competitions (who has since been banished from the team #BringBackKP).

I believe the real problem is one of culture. Our players are told to 'express themselves' and 'play your natural game', but only if that means doing well - fail and you're out. A recent example of this is Ben Stokes. One of the brightest talents in English cricket plays one (admittedly awful) shot, and is dropped the next game so that Luke Wright could bat lower down the order, having scored 1, 0, 0 and 7* thus far in the Caribbean.

The call-up of Ian Bell further exemplifies this notion that England would rather have someone unsuitable to a position play and fail 'well', than someone who will try something different. He is obviously a wonderful player, but is he really going to score you a 25-ball 50 like a Kevin Pietersen might? Probably not, but he won't get caught at deep mid-wicket, so in he comes.

Dwayne Smith's innings in Barbados for me truly highlighted the contrast between the two sides. His knock included a six over third man from a wild slash, and another maximum from a filthy slog, dragging a ball from outside off over long-on. But his 30 off 16 balls set up the game for West Indies to cruise home, with the adage of 'they're all the same in the scorebook' ringing around the stadium. Could and will Smith get out in the first over playing like that? Sure. But is it not worth the gamble, to have even one player just throw the bat and see what happens?

Jos Butler and Eoin Morgan are constantly being praised for their innovation and ingenuity, and that is because they don't let failure put them off. Butler was bowled three time against Pakistan trying to play the flip shot, and yet he still plays it most games because he knows the benefits of it outweigh the possibility of it not working. Morgan is the same; he got out today playing the sweep, but you can put your house on him trying the shot again.

It's time England genuinely embrace 20-over cricket for the exhibition that it is, and allow players to not be afraid to fail. Because frankly, they are doing that anyway - they could at least entertain us in the process.

Hack Ashes 2006/07 vs 2013/14 Part Deux: The Position.

People seem to forget what a state English cricket was in six years ago. Not two years after this was the Pietersen-Moores stand-off, and the 51 all out vs the West Indies. So maybe, things aren't as bad as they appear. Obviously the 2006/07 Ashes team was one of the best ever put onto a cricket field, and so the 5-0 smashing was more justified than the one just handed out by Darren Lehman's boys. But eerily the problems faced by England are much the same as those presented back then. I'll go through the First XI, then hopefully formulate an answer as to which position is worse - 2007 vs Present day.

1. The Experienced Opener: Strauss vs Cook - Strauss had a terrible tour. Granted he had a few atrocious decisions go against him, but even so he looked vulnerable outside off stump, and demotivated after losing the captaincy. If it wasn't for his magnificent career saving hundred against New Zealand in 2008 the following year, he may have been discarded. Cook too has had problems, both outside off-stump and inside he head. Pietersen-gate may well be the start of the end for his captaincy career, but you would be mad to right him off as a batsman. 0-1

2. The New Opener: Cook vs Carberry - Cook largely struggled in 2006/07, with McGrath and Clark's consistent probing highlighting many technical flaws. His hundred at Melbourne however proved his talent, and marked him as one for the future. If Cook was a question mark, then Carberry is a hole-punch. He looked well equipped but didn't kick on after many starts. His age will also be against him in this 'new era' of English cricket being brought in by Paul Downton. There are names in County cricket, but at the moment that's all they are. 1-1

3. The Young Number 3: Bell vs Root - Ian Bell bulked up mentally and physically for the 2006/07 series, even seeing a psychologist to help combat Shane Warne's sledging. He scored 3 accomplished fifties, and although only averaging 33, he shed his previous 'easy cricket' image after some tough hundreds against Pakistan the previous summer. Joe Root on the other hand is still a 'prospect'. His 87 at Adelaide was possibly England's best knock of the series, but his technique looks all but decimated, with his range of shots so prevalent in India,  becoming worrying lacking. Back to County cricket for some runs I feel.  2-1

4. The Star: Collingwood vs Pietersen - Easy choice, as Pietersen has been dispensed with. Collingwood's grit was the backbone of England's rise to prominence must as Jonathan Trott's has been recently. He piled on match-winning runs in the ODI's and looked (and was) a staple of the national side for years to come. Pietersen has left a big hole, which is frantically trying to be plugged by Eoin Morgan. His First-class average of 32 for Middlesex last summer may suggest the vacancy has yet to be filled. Can you find a replacement for a genius? 3-1

5. The Talent: Pietersen vs Bell - An interesting one in that both reached peaks at these similar junctions. 2006/07 Pietersen smashed an imperious 158 at Adelaide and averaged 54. Bell's finest hour was in the summer's previous Ashes series, and looked mentally weary in this series, but still has his best years ahead of him. Both players faced the question of whether they should move up the order, with Bell actually being forced up to number 3 due to lack of other options. I feel Bell however is the air apparent for the number 4 slot, similar to Pietersen, as a naturally aggressive player who is equally good against both spin and pace. For me however, 2007 takes this one - KP is a genius after all. 4-1

6. The All-Rounder: Flintoff vs Stokes - Flintoff's captaincy was fairly poor in the 2006/07 series, and probably wasn't the right man for the job. He was a talisman, a game-changers, and a great player. But with his injuries, I feel most people knew he wouldn't be around for long. Arguably his best spells came after this series (2008 vs Kallis, and in the 2009 Ashes), but he was never again a permanent fixture of the side. Stokes was a ray of light in an otherwise dark ashes series, and seems to have it all - he's 22 and athletic, with a good batting technique and 90mph bowling. How England manage him will be the real determinant of his future, but at the moment it looks bright. 4-2

7. The Discarded Keeper: Jones/Read vs Prior/Bairstow - Post-2007 onwards saw a constant wicketkeeping battle, with the question of what was better, a 'proper keeper' or a keeper-batsman. With the likes of Chris Read and James Foster queuing up, it was a fair argument. Batting won however, and Prior was given a chance. Now I feel we have the same question, but with none of the choices. Not to say this is a bad thing, merely that the game has changed - players like Steven Davies and Jos Butler are proper batsman with an added string in their bow. Butler needs time but he looks a mighty fine prospect, and I believe we have not yet seen the last of Matt Prior. 4-3

8. The Retired Spinner: Giles/Panesar vs Swann/Panesar/Borthwick - An obvious one, but not closer than people may think. Panesar was obviously a rising star back in 2007 compared to now, but quickly found himself out in the cold due to lack of mystery. You only need to look at selected names like Alex Loudon and Jaime Dalrymple to know that England didn't have a clue which spinner to pick. Even Graeme Swann's selection was initially bemoaned as old-hat, at a time where the Murali hype was still massive and mystery spin was being called for. However, new county regulations have made the experienced spinner a thing of the past, with players like Simon Kerrigan, Danny Briggs and Scott Borthwick all possessing raw talent, but lacking the years necessitating an experienced bowler. Part-timers such as Joe Root and Moen Ali could become more in vogue for a few years, complimenting a reliance of green seaming wickets during English summers. All in all England's spin department is currently looking bare. Time will hopefully bloom a new flower, or this may not be the last series they lose overseas. 5-3

9. The First Change Seamer - Anderson/Plunkett/Mahmood vs Bresnan - In 2007 England didn't have a clue. Any guy that could spell 'reverse-swing' was being asked to fill Simon Jones' massive boots, leading to the selections of James Anderson, Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood, then subsequently Ajmal Shahzad, Darren Pattinson and Amjad Khan. All failed and left with a handful of test caps, different actions and damaged careers, with only Anderson really recovering (because he went back to his non-Kevin Shine given action). Tim Bresnan is reliable. He came into this series under-prepared and shrugging off a recent surgery to put in the hours for the team. All criticism has been incredibly harsh in my eyes. He does the job England ask of him time and again, and given a bit of time off to get fit he will be his usual miserly self again, grabbing key wickets at the right time. 5-4

10. The Leader: Hoggard vs Anderson - Both were/are over-relied upon, and both have bowling averages that indicate this. Anderson is perhaps England's greatest ever test bowler, and for this reason will be harder to replace than Hoggard. In 2007 there was Ryan Sidebottom who put in a few incredible years, while Hoggard was forced out by Anderson himself. This time around though, there isn't an immediate succesor in County Cricket to the swing bowling crown. When Anderson's impressive injury-free run comes to an end, there will be some serious head-scratching from selectors, and his retirement is a dauntingly close prospect. 6-4

11. The Height & Pace - Harmison/ vs Broad/Tremlett/Finn/Rankin - Clearly, England didn't have a replacement for Broad in the recent series, and so gambled, put all their eggs in one giant basket, and selected all three bowlers in the county over 6'6. Compared with the lack of options in England during the 2006/07 series, this may not be a negative - Harmison was so pivotal to England's success that the whole nation gasped when he lost it. Similar shock-waves were not felt when the same felt befell Steven Finn. However, I still feel it was an absolute crime that Graham Onions wasn't brought on the 2013/14 tour. Stuart Broad, the main occupier of the spot with 238 test wickets, is still young at 27 and will be around for years to come. With emerging players like Mark Wood and Toby Roland-Jones on the horizon, England look a lot healthier than in 2007 at what was for a few years a baron pace-wasteland. 6-5

2006/07 - 6
2013/14 - 5
In summary, there isn't too much to choose between the two lows of recent English cricket. Back then no one foresaw the development of Stuart Broad and James Anderson into world-class bowlers, the maturity of Ian Bell, the prolificness of Alastair Cook or the emergence of Graeme Swann and Jonathan Trott. This summer will be big for the young batters around the country, with the likes of James Taylor, Sam Robson and Jos Butler all likely to get their chance. Hard years may again follow, but given the right management and a bit of inspiration, there's no reason why England can't again rise to the top of world cricket.

Hack Ashes 2006/07 vs 2013/14: Mirror Image.

It's an obvious and hack thing to say that the recent calamitous Ashes is a repeat to that of six year ago, not least because the score lines are the same (it's probably more hack to write a blog post about it). But given a closer look, the similarities are even scarier. I'm going to list them, then try to compare England's position now to 2007.

The most prevalent similarity is the removal of the once deified coach. Duncan Fletcher turned England around, brought in stable central contracts for players, and won the first Ashes series victory in 18 years. By the end of the 2006/07 tour he was being torn apart in the media and was essentially banished from the country. Andy Flower will leave on more harmonious terms, but may not be remembered as the coach to bring England's first global limited-overs trophy or climb to Number 1 in the test rankings, but as the one who ruined said great team.

Both series also saw the stagnation/ending of numerous bowling careers. An injury plagued 2006 meant that players such as Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood were thrown in at the deep end far too early, with only a handful of tests each under their belts. Both suffered, both failed, and particularly in Mahmood's case, never regained top form. Tremlett and Rankin were the unlucky ones this time. Picked for their height and apparent pace, both appeared undercooked. Tremlett's plethora of injuries seem to have finally taken their toll, where as Rankin simply looked like the drinks carrier he was for most of the series.
Matthew Hoggard was shadowed by James Anderson in being the over-worked leader of the pack, both putting in the expected good performances, but were all too often the only choices for their respective captains. Hopefully Anderson's career won't be halted only a year after this series like Hoggard's was, wrongly in my opinion.
Stephen Harmison was also paralleled by Steven Finn in getting 'the yips', allegedly not being able to hit the cut strip in the nets; and everyone will remember that first ball at Brisbane by Harmison. He managed to regain his place and play a role in the 2009 home series, so hopefully the younger Finn will be able to do the same.
Last but not least in the bowling department, both series saw the departure of the previously reliable spinner. Both Giles and Swann came into the series after operations, and both found the flatter Australian pitches harder to bowl on, struggling to contain aggressive batting line-ups. Both were dropped (yes Swann was about to be dropped) mid-series, to make way for the same player in Monty Panesar. It was with expectation and public outcry that forced cult hero Panesar into the team at Perth in 2006, compared worryingly with the last-chance-saloon feel that accompanied his (potentially final) appearance last month. Even more worrying is that the same bowler played both times with no discernible improvement - it was noticeable how flat Panesar bowled in Melbourne with no spin being generated, alongside many bad deliveries akin to a less experienced bowler. I think in the future the national side will be faced with similar spin department struggles that 2007 England faced.

In the batting, both series saw the return of the good old fashioned English collapse after periods of relative stability in Tests. The 2006 Adelaide test is still the most ridiculous and unprecedented toppling of a team i've seen in cricket. Unfortunately, most of the 2013/14 series will be remembered for Mitchell Johnson scarring the batting technique out of the majority of tail-enders. There were also less highlights this time around, with batsman supposedly at their peak falling to rash shots, lacking the grit given by Paul Collingwood six years ago. Jonathan Trott's tragic departure due to mental illness also brought back memories of the tough time endured by Marcus Trescothick. I join everyone in wishing Trott all the best, and hope he can find peace and return in the way Trescothick and fellow sufferer Michael Yardy both have. The current England team certainly have a lot more question marks over them, which will no doubt be answered in the upcoming English summer.

Finally, Both teams saw a switch in their keepers after Perth. Chris Read took over from the ever declining Geraint Jones after his poor form became embarrassing. Prior suffered a similar if not more meteoric dip in fortunes. Read was a more obvious replacement, having virtually hammered down the door after years of consistent brilliance in County cricket. Bairstow on the other hand is not a keeper. He is barely a test batsman, and I feel his future route into the team will be via the top six, unless his glovework drastically improves. Ironically, the long term solution in both circumstances could still be Matt Prior. He is only 31, and given some runs and a bit of confidence may return to the team and offer much until a youngster like Butler or Kieswetter is good enough to take over.

Most importantly I feel that both series highlighted what un-preparedness, arrogance, and undue expectancy can do in sport. 2006 England had half their best XI out injured but still expected to rock up and win, with the 2013 group, not having played on any bouncy surfaces in 2+ years, still high and cocky from their recent win. Let's just hope the next time England find success it won't be followed by them going half way around the world and thinking nothing's changed...for a third time.

'The Best'

Last week saw the retirement of Jacques Henry Kallis from test cricket - the greatest allrounder, if not player, to ever play the game. Kallis? The best player ever? Nonsense, what about X when they smashed England everywhere, or Y when they tore through Australia's batting?

Kallis is not only the third leading run-scorer (ahead of Brian Lara and Alan Border), the proud holder of 292 wickets (more than the likes of Michael Holding and Richie Benaud), and 200 catches, second-highest in the outfield (ahead of Mark Waugh and Ricky Ponting); he also saw a rise in South African cricket from a country recently re-introduced to test cricket, to the number one side in the world, nurturing talent such as A.B De Villiers and Hashim Amla to mirror his technique along the way. He has been a rock in a sea of flamboyance, and his allround contribution to cricket is unparalleled and statistically will never be matched.

My only hope is that he continues into the coaching profession so will may see something that remotely resembles him, be it a perfectly executed cover drive, or a solid defence in the face of adversity.

The reason that he will never be truly spoken of as the phenomenal player he was, is that he didn't excite the way other players did, never completely dominating the opposition in the way a Viv Richards innings could, or a fiery spell from Curtly Ambrose. As testament to this he scored his first double-hundred aged 35, because once he had got to a 100 his job was done and he didn't need to showboat anymore. He was every bit a team player whether people remember that or not.

Anyone however can write an ode to Kallis. What is highlighted to me is the comparison between his career, and England's brief stint as the No.1 ranked test side. They got there by playing sensible, at times attritional, cricket. Bowling dry and batting time, typified by the success of Jonathan Trott and Tim Bresnan. Nothing flashy, just getting the job done.

Yet when they reached the summit of the cricketing mountain, they were told to 'play like champions'. To quote Gore Vidal 'It is not enough to succeed, others must fail'. Suddenly it was not enough to simply be better than the opponents, they now had to irrefutably show it. Kallis proved this a fallacy, yet England players that didn't meet the new, unprovoked, entertainment criteria were lambasted and disposed of (see Nick Compton and James Taylor).

England must learn from Kallis and stop trying to imitate others, but simply play like themselves and hope winning is enough for everyone else.

Accomodation

This week has been possibly the most hyperbolic week in the history of sports media coverage, ever. Quotes such as 'worst English display' and 'lowest point in English cricket' have been banded about as though the 2006-07 series never happened. And although England's second innings in Melbourne was dreadful, it was nothing compared to six years ago at Adelaide, when the whole team fell onto a Shane Warne shaped sword whilst batting on the M1.

Worst of all the criticism in my opinion, is that being thrown at Kevin Pietersen. Yes he may be having an average series, but he is one of the few England players that occasionally looks comfortable against a fine Australian attack. And yet these same denouncers of character seem to think Joe Root is the ultimate answer, and should be yet again moved down the order to accommodate his shortcomings.

Now obviously the caveat must be stated - Root is the brightest prospect in English cricket, and has already shown that talent at international level. However, the stats will show he has the lowest average in the top six, and apart from a great innings Adelaide has looked defensive and vulnerable. And now column inches are being dedicated to the idea of him dropping down to five with Ian Bell moving up the order to shield Root from the new ball. Madness.

There are few sides in the world that would sacrifice a performing Senior player in order to possibly help a struggling Junior. Ian Bell, like Michael Clarke, bats better at five, is good against spin and will inevitably move up to four when Pietersen retires. It would be foolish to risk him against the new ball and impart further woes onto an already struggling batting line-up.

Joe Root should not be mollycoddled. Alastair Cook faced similar problems to Root early in his career; being predominantly a back-foot player he struggled (and is struggling again) with the full ball outside off-stump. But he was definite in his status as an opener, and so figured out a technique that allowed him to be the great player his is today. Root has been given the option of an easier life coming in later, and so constantly has a scapegoat, the excuse of 'well i'd be better down the order'.

He needs to adapt, or be replaced until he can fulfil the role England need him to fill - that of a top order player. There is time for him and easier opposition to come, I just hope England replace the right man, and don't put all their eggs into a soft future basket.

'The new...'

Last night, at the embarrassingly late time of 4am, I found myself awake and watching the live coverage of the England XI vs Cricket Australia Chairman's XI game played on an Aussie Rules Football pitch. It was a fairly dull affair mainly due to the slow outfield, poor standard of bowling and general lack of any aptitude from a despondent and downtrodden England side.

Despite this, I did find myself briefly engaged due to one man - Ben Stokes. With a carefree walk to the crease and a nonchalant swinging of the arms he reminded me of a young, incredibly burnt, Clive Lloyd. Unfortunately that was as far as the comparison went, with his brief innings of 28 starting and stalling until he was well caught at short leg. The more time he spent at the crease, the more it lead me to another comparison with much more commonality than that of a West Indian legend - that of Andrew Flintoff.

Like Flintoff he started his career as more of a batter; hard-hitting, belligerent, and showing immense power and presence at the crease even at a young age. Also like Flintoff, he was perhaps the wrong side of the fitness line, 'high skin fold percentage' as the Australians would say. And even more like Flintoff, he had the hint of a reckless side - he was sent home last winter from an England Lions tour due for repeat offences of late-night drinking.

The disgrace of being sent home appears to have been the catalyst he needed - He has become bigger, broader and leaner, allowing him to develop his bowling and clock speeds of 90mph last summer, taking 42 First Class wickets at 26.57. His batting is still developing, and while he does have a propensity to be rash at times, his inclusion in the Ashes squad shows there is clearly enough to suggest he can succeed at test level.

I noticed him yesterday for none of these reasons, but solely due to his swagger and body language. After the absolute trashing England received at Brisbane, it was refreshing to see someone who looked confident and assured in the middle, as though he was above the bowlers and wanted them to know it.

It's easy after a heavy defeat to look for quick answers, a miracle cure. The selections of certain recent Australia players has shown the folly of this. It is also easy to look for 'the next...' and 'the new...' - every allrounder in the 90's was dubbed 'the new Ian Botham', and England are still searching for 'the new Andrew Flintoff'. So for any new allrounder, this may have to be an albatross they wear around their neck.

But in my opinion, Ben Stokes may be that man, and is worth a try for the next Test at Adelaide. He doesn't have the scars that Johnny Bairstow has, nor the timid look occasionally conveyed by Gary Ballance. Will he be the difference between the two teams? Probably not. May he fail miserably? Quite possibly. But the aggression and attitude he could bring to the team is something England are currently lacking.

The whole England team may be sent home in disgrace from this Ashes tour. But, there is a still a possibility that this new man on the horizon, could be the catalyst England need.

Moneyball

The best-selling book and subsequent Hollywood film ‘Moneyball’ is based around the tactics of the Oakland A’s Baseball team. They changed their outlook on player recruitment, moving away from tradition scouting methods based on appearance, and looking more at statistical analysis and how certain players can fill specific roles within a team.

We can already see these changes happening within cricket. Northamptonshire Chief Executive David Smith and Coach David Ripley had a tiny budget to work with, but managed to win this year’s T20 by making solid signings of previously under-appreciated players, and bringing in some relatively cheap overseas talents that might not bring in the crowds, but did put in performances.

 James Middlebrook and Matt Spriegel had both been released from big counties, but formed the vital spin attack that bowled economically in the middle overs to squeeze opposition. Kyle Coetzer was released from Durham, but opened the batting for Northants and in a similar vein to Jonathan Trott for Warwickshire, batted through the innings and provided the platform for the hitters later on. Steven Crook was also released from Middlesex, but bowled with pace and offered explosive lower-order batting.  The previously unknown Azharullah was the tournament’s leading wicket-taker, bowling reverse swinging yorkers in the final overs. And Cameron White and Richard Levi, two proven t20 players but not necessarily marquee signings, scored six fifties and a hundred between them. All of this alongside local talents like David Willey and Alex Wakely took Northants to the title, beating the likes of Surrey, Essex and Somerset along the way.

What this tells us is that cricket is not all about appearances, regardless of what our current system may dictate. Richard Levi wouldn’t get a sniff at a contract if he were a young pro today yet has scored the fastest international t20 hundred. Samit Patel has been left out of the England ODI set up because of his weight, despite averaging over 50 in List A with the bat this year.  And James Taylor (First Class average of 56.20 this year) is seemingly not in the Test side due to his shorter stature and unorthodox technique, compared to the preferred Johnny Bairstow who ‘looks the part’.

It is time that English cricket adapted. Just because a player is released doesn’t mean he’s useless, and just because they look the part doesn’t mean they are. In-depth selection is needed if we are to move forward, and should go further than what county a player is at, or how they compare in a photograph.