Ten reasons England suck/it went wrong

[Owzat]

BBC Sport - Ashes 2013-14: Where has it gone wrong for England?

Captain Cook v Captain Clarke
Lack of runs
The failures of senior batsmen
Mitchell Johnson
England's senior bowlers
A tale of two wicketkeepers
Off-field leadership
Squad selection
Brand of cricket
Three lost tosses

And three things that made no difference

The 82-page menu
Celebrations at the Oval
Wives and girlfriends

Interesting read under all those headings

 

[angryangy]

In terms of a lack of runs, 'intimidated' isn't the only word. Shot selection could also be described at times as vain and arrogant. At Adelaide, they'd clearly decided that they were going to pull aggressively to make a statement, regardless of whether they could keep it down or beat the fine leg. The impression one gets from both KP and Ian Bell is that they think they must prove that they're better than the likes of Steve Smith or Shane Watson. So they start to play their shots and it goes well; they start to control the innings. Then they go too far and look foolish. Maybe against weaker bowling, this would work, but these bowlers have so far managed to end any burgeoning big partnership.

Maybe Prior is just out form; maybe he bats in a way that Australian bowlers often like. Cook is the big one and to say they've bowled well at him is an understatement. He has probably worn the best of the bowling and I think it speaks of him not exactly being out of form that he has managed to graft some good hard 50s. Perhaps it speaks of the persistence of the attack that he's not managed to convert a big daddy hundred out of his sparse starts, or perhaps England's crippled morale has made it more nerve wracking for any batsman to push the game in that sort of a direction.

And maybe that is the effect we see in England's fielding. It's atrocious, but we know they can field. They just look like they're under 10 times the pressure when a catch is coming to them. The worst case of dysfunction was when Bell and Anderson failed to call a catch that tamely dropped between them. Pressure draws your focus. You need to watch the ball, you can't miss it; but you forget that little thing that is communicating with your teammates.

This problem only adds to the Australians apparent feelings of invincibility. They seem to know that if they play shots, England is under pressure to field them, even if the shots are bad. If things were different, then maybe England's accurate bowling would be backed up by good catching and a reverse of fortunes. There have certainly been a lot more wickets on offer for the English than have been held on to.

 

[Mike23]

You could try to find a hundred more reasons why England lost, but the only answer you'd find is Australia were better. They were better at batting, bowling and fielding. In contrast England's batting were too brittle, fielding was pathetic and to say their bowling was out of sorts is an understatement.

 

[ferg512]

The thing that frustrates me now is that I can't really see them making too many changes. Prior, Anderson and Swann should probably not be playing in the final two tests to be perfectly honest. They shafted Hoggard when they dropped him after they lost a test here about 5 years ago, why not Anderson?? Just realised I've posted in the wrong thread, my bad.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

I think Haddin has been a huge, huge difference.

England have been in 2 strong positions bowling first, in the 3rd and first test, 130-6 in the first (recover brilliantly to 290 which was probably about par for the pitch). Haddin top scored i think with ~94. If Australia get rolled for say, anything under 220 it doesn't really matter (of course it matters, i mean it's not critical) how badly england do in their innings as they will still be in the game if they get bowled very cheaply for about 150ish

third test saw an almost identical situation, 140-5, Haddin scores a century, aus get to a whisker short of 400. england under pressure now.

2nd test was not the same, they were 230-5, game is kinda 60/40 in aus favour at this point, but haddin scores a century to post way over 500. at that point england basically can't win


haven't really made a solid point here yet, i guess what I'm trying to say is that there have been 3 big losses, but England have been in good positions early on twice, and an average position. It's at these stages Australia (mainly Haddin) have stood up and made themselves counted, the second innings runs are almost irrelevant, as they are under no pressure, if they do appalingly and get rolled very cheaply they are still setting 300+ for england to win.

Again I haven't explained it very well but essentially what I'm saying is England have been a little more competetive than the scorelines suggest, obviously they have been heavily outplayed. All the stats, batting/bowling averages show this. but if you look at the context of how the games have played out England have been in 2 good positions, and it's at those points it has all gone wrong.

If you took swapped the first innings scores of prior and Haddin around for each match we could well be sat here at 2-1 england or 3-0 england, both have been coming in when the game is up for grabs.

 

[gunners]

to leave the first class leading wicket taker graham onions at home was a joke england deserve everything they get

 

[C Boomer]

Would dearly love to see England give big Boyd Rankin a first international cap, I genuinely believe he would be England's answer to Mitchel Johnston and some !!

 

[War]

After reading this article - Five England players to watch | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo a few days ago & the suprirse Swann's retirement - this is the test XI & squad i hope England should go for for the 2014 home season.

Cook
Robson
Root
KP
Bell
Ali
Stokes
Foster
Broad
Anderson
Finn

Compton, Ballance, Rankin, Mills, Meaker, Buttler, Panesar

Firstly i'm hoping KP & Anderson doesn't do a Swann & retire - that could throw England into real turmoil. They two of them still have much use to England.

On the team balance, one thing ENG need to do is get the batting back in order - given how long a 400+ total hasn't been scored. The workload ENG bowlers have had to endure since January 2012, especially Anderson/Swann is well documented.

So some new batsman (preferably younger) like Root need to come in - alongside the experience of Cook/KP/Bell to freshen things up.

Sam Robson: As much as Carberry has not disgraced himself, he probably is not a long term solution anyway. So i'd thank him for his efforts in the Ashes & give young Robson a go. He is at a good age & would form a decent left/right hand opening combo with Cook.

Moeen Ali: Now that Swann is gone the spin cupboard across all formats is bare. The fact that ENG chose to call up these two proves it conclusively - The Ashes 2013-14 : Scott Borthwick, James Tredwell added to England Test squad | Cricket News | England in Australia - The Ashes | ESPN Cricinfo. I'm not sure how Tredwell has been getting people out in ODI's & Borthwick although has some raw ability as a leggie, has hardly bowled in any form of cricket last season - his batting took precedent.

Panesar is the only clear option & he really should only be used on turners instead of being a major part of the attack.

This is why i'm tempted to promote Mooen Ali. His batting IMO is not that far off Gary Ballance & his bowling although its a work in progress - can be used alongside Roots. ENG attack post Swann should be pace focused until a spinner demands to be regular started based on FC performances. Don't need to be using test cricket for any spinner to learn on the job.

James Foster: Would also advocate Prior being tapped on the shoulder after the Ashes. Joss Buttler will soon be the keeper across all formats, but he needs a season or two to work on keeping for 4-day cricket @ his new Lancashire county, before he gets role in tests.

Bairstow is not a long term test keeper option - so really from the first class Steven Davies & James Foster are the best options.

Davies is clearly younger & a more natural replacement, but I'm advocating Foster because he really is the best pure glovesman in the world & this would be a great chance for the world to get reacquainted with his ability. He reminded many of this during his brief recall during the 2009 T20 world cup.

Guys like Geraint Jones, Tim Ambrose, the old Prior got the nod over him because of their better batting @ # 7 & the fact that Flintoff wasn't always fit to play. Thus the balance of the test side couldn't afford pick him with is weak batting skills.

However now with Stokes around, i reckon he can be useful batting @ # 8, scoring enough runs and being an almost faultless gloves-man.

Ease of Bresnan for tests, just use him in ODIs & back Finn he is the future when Anderson tails off completely. Let Mills, Rankin, Meaker, Onions support in the quick bowling ranks & such a team/squad should rebuild quickly.

ENG don't have a talent issue, just need freshening up in a few area's with some basic, smart selection.

 

[Aislabie]

James Foster is good, but I disagree strongly about how good.

For me, Prasanna Jayawardene is the best gloveman in the world, and Ben Scott would have been right behind him for some time until he opted for a career outside the game. Among Ben Scott's most awesome achievements, I would pick out the time he stood up to Dirk Nannes as a moment of sheer courage.

***

Anyhow, my XI against Sri Lanka would be:

Cook - Has had a poor time of things, but does not deserve to be dropped yet. Also deserves a chance to make the team into his team.
Robson - I'm agnostic about him, but if we're going to give him a shot, we may as well do it against Sri Lanka's average seem attack.
Ali - Classiest number three at our disposal, and a hugely disciplined young man, he could perhaps develop into an England captain. Also bowls good offies.
Root - I don't think he's a top-order grinder, but he isn't a middle-order dasher either. The perfect place for him is number four.
Bell - As England's best batsman at present, he deserves the chance to bat precisely where he wants to bat. And that's number five.
Stokes - A really promising all-rounder, Ben Stokes showed with his maiden ton that he has the temperament. Also a sharp bowler.
Patel - We don't have any Test-class spinners, apart perhaps from Panesar, so Patel and Ali can share the role and add some runs.
Wheater - A little bit left-field, perhaps, but Adam Wheater's classy batting and tidy glovework sell him pretty well to me.
Broad - The only English bowler really to shine, I think that after missing the last two Ashes Tests, he should lead the attack against SL.
Finn - Whatever his issues of late, I think Steven Finn needs to have some faith shown in him. Tell him to steam in and give it everything.
Meaker - Quick, hostile, and worth a go with the red ball. Sri Lanka are the perfect opposition against whom he can try his strength.
Onions - The 12th member of the squad, it's between him, Meaker and Finn for the second and third seam spots.


Omissions
- Carberry: A classy player, but ultimately I don't see him making enough big scores to hold onto his place long-term.
- Pietersen: Simply too disruptive an influence for Cook to build his team with Pietersen around, and no longer making the runs needed to overlook that.
- Prior: He just looks shot. I considered replacing him with a number of others, but ultimately I just like Adam Wheater. Davies is also an option.
- Anderson: Looks absolutely out of it. Needs resting up as much as possible if he's to contribute to another big series.
- Bresnan: Looks about as threatening as Dobby the House Elf.
- Panesar: Unsure as to his quality as a bowler, and whether it makes up for his fielding any more.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

that 120 stokes scored is going to come back to haunt england. I very much doubt he'll become a useful international cricketer.

almost every succesful all-rounder ever would have made his team on the back of one of his attributes.

miller, imran, pollock, hadlee, botham, kapil dev, flintoff (when he was actually worth his place) would all have been in the side for their bowling.

sobers and kallis would have been in for their batting.

I'm sure there are one or two exceptions from 50-60 years ago, and probably shastri, but I think that's pretty much the rule now. ok, a batsman may be picked above another slightly better batsman because he can turn his arm over a bit, like symonds was picked by australia and india are probably keener to keep ashwin in over ojha because ashwin can bat. but those guys and others like them are still in the mix because of one primary asset.

stokes is a long way off being one of the best young batsmen in county cricket and he is a long way off being one of the best bowlers. he'll play a couple of years, his average will flatline in the low 30s and his bowling average will flatline in the mid to high 30s with him only taking a wicket or 2 a game.

 

[Aislabie]

Worryingly (looking at his FC record), I think he is pretty close to being one of the more talented young batsmen in county cricket.

So you've got Taylor, Ballance, Bairstow and a couple of others, but how many of them have technical poise and balance, good temperament and the general abilities that Stokes shows? Taylor and Bairstow are both techally flawed, for sure.

Stokes wouldn't make the team yet on the back of either suit alone, but I don't think his batting is really that far off. He has all of the raw ingredients, and what is missing should come from experience. Give him a go, tell him he has twelve months and not to worry about his place.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

I would've thought 'complacency' should've made it onto that list. Seems to me that everyone felt that all England had to do was fly out there and they'd win.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

I don't think complacency was an issue.

If the set-up was complacent they wouldn't have made an 82 page document of acceptable sandwich fillings.

Maybe a couple of the players were slack, but i can only imagine that being KP.

 

[War]

that 120 stokes scored is going to come back to haunt england. I very much doubt he'll become a useful international cricketer.

almost every succesful all-rounder ever would have made his team on the back of one of his attributes.

miller, imran, pollock, hadlee, botham, kapil dev, flintoff (when he was actually worth his place) would all have been in the side for their bowling.

sobers and kallis would have been in for their batting.

I'm sure there are one or two exceptions from 50-60 years ago, and probably shastri, but I think that's pretty much the rule now. ok, a batsman may be picked above another slightly better batsman because he can turn his arm over a bit, like symonds was picked by australia and india are probably keener to keep ashwin in over ojha because ashwin can bat. but those guys and others like them are still in the mix because of one primary asset.

stokes is a long way off being one of the best young batsmen in county cricket and he is a long way off being one of the best bowlers. he'll play a couple of years, his average will flatline in the low 30s and his bowling average will flatline in the mid to high 30s with him only taking a wicket or 2 a game.

Whooa SBH, well given i have high hopes that Stokes will be the real all-rounder ENG want - i would say your assertion on what Stokes will become, is a bit over the top my friend.

Also i'm not sure your point on how teams have historically picked all-rounders is totally correct.

With England for example in recent history, i don't know if you remember how Flintoff & Craig White looked when they made their test debuts - but they were a level below the talent Stokes showed in both facets currently.

And we all know how key those two were as all-rounders in the 2000s for England. White after his debut in 1995 (one of weird biased Yorkshire selections of Ray Illingworth), went back to domestic cricket & didn't become a international standard all-rounder until 2000 again.

He was key to ENG beating Windies for the 1st time in 31 years in 2000 & ENGs famous winter 2001 wins in Pakistan & Sri Lanka.

Flintoff had much hype from his youth days, but on his debut in 1998 he looked nothing more than a country trundler all-rounder like what Chris Lewis, David Capel, Mark Ealham were. Plus between 98-2000 he was heavily criticized for his weight issues.

Its only during ENG 2001 tour to India when he had lead the England bowling attack vs the much vaunted IND batting line-up, after senior bowlers Gough/Caddick pulled out the tour, after everyone was afraid to visit Asia after the 9/11 attacks worries - that he looked fully international standard.

Firstly as a bowling all-rounder who was defensive bowler who could slog handy late order runs 2001-2004. Then from 2004-2006 when he was a complete all-rounder in both facets - the highlights of this period being Ashes 05 & IND 2006 series.

So from that perspective Stokes at a younger age, looks more settled as a potential top-quality international all-rounder, than them both.


From a historical, worldwide perspective, yes some all-rounders as you mentioned got into teams based on a very strong core strength - but some of them were just a raw as Stokes before they developed.

Based on my knowledge guys like Imran, Hadlee, Pollock, Hadlee, Procter, Kapil, Klusener, Jack Gregory, Benaud, Davidson, Cairns, Bruce Taylor, Vettori, for sure were bowling all-rounders first - whose batting kicked on later as their careers went on.

Botham, Miller & Vinood Mankad were actually excellent in both facets when they started & could have made the teams on the strength of their bowling or batting.

Kallis, M Mohammad, Trevor Goddard, Shane Watson, Bravo, Warwick Armstrong, Aubrey Faulkner, Tony Greig, John Reid - were batting all-rounders first, who bowling gradually developed.

Trevor Bailey & Brian McMillan were all-rounders who could never made the team on the strength on either skill. They were never the among the top 6 or top 4 best bowlers. But their skills in either facet, was solid enough for ENG of the 50s & SA of the 90s to always include them for the sake of team balance.

Sobers & Asif Iqbal were interesting cases. Sobers started as very average left-arm spinner & Iqbal a medium pacer. The more both played Sobers batting skill kept improving until he evolved into the greatest batsman in history after Bradman & his bowling as we all know improved, so at his all-round peak - he was more of Kallis type batting all-rounder.

Iqbal batting also kept improving, while his bowling became less useful.

Off all these categories - Stokes right now is in the Bailey/McMillan category. His hundred showed his batting ability, while his ability to bowl close to 90mph showed his ability with the ball.

As he keeps playing we will be able to give a more definite answer about which facet is his strong point.

 

[War]

James Foster is good, but I disagree strongly about how good.

For me, Prasanna Jayawardene is the best gloveman in the world, and Ben Scott would have been right behind him for some time until he opted for a career outside the game. Among Ben Scott's most awesome achievements, I would pick out the time he stood up to Dirk Nannes as a moment of sheer courage.


Patel - We don't have any Test-class spinners, apart perhaps from Panesar, so Patel and Ali can share the role and add some runs.


- Pietersen: Simply too disruptive an influence for Cook to build his team with Pietersen around, and no longer making the runs needed to overlook that.
- Prior: He just looks shot. I considered replacing him with a number of others, but ultimately I just like Adam Wheater. Davies is also an option.
- Anderson: Looks absolutely out of it. Needs resting up as much as possible if he's to contribute to another big series.

When people used to say that about P Jayawardene it was mainly when he kept to mystery of Murali & Mendis when he was hype. But since Murali has retired & Mendis has been hardly picked - i don't see anything that superb about P Jaywardene's keeping.

In fact he hasn't played a test for SRI since December 2012 & was only recently recalled - Pakistan v Sri Lanka 2013-14 : Prasanna Jayawardene returns to Sri Lanka Test squad | Cricket News | Pakistan v Sri Lanka | ESPN Cricinfo & there is no guaranteed he will even play.

But even if some have reservation about my assertion of James Foster, if Prior is to be tapped on the shoulder, the best option based on FC performances is Steven Davies still - we shouldn't too far from him.

However on second thought on Prior - if he can score some good runs in the final two Ashes test - we might not necessarily have to look for a replacement.

Would disagree on Patel - he showed conclusively in India last winter he is not a test cricketer. Root & potentially Moeen Ali are the only batsmen in the middle-order the team would need as spin back-up.

People also need to be careful on the KP criticism & calls to axe him. What's this talk about KP being a disruptive influence now? That unsubstantiated.

Fair maybe some ENG players deep down may not have forgiven him for the saga last year - but even that we don;t know. Fact is the team overall has been in decline. KP bats like how he does this series all the time - he isn't a Graham Thorpe type bat. This same type of risky batting produced that superb 186 @ Ahemedabad & 140+ vs the lethal S Africa @ Leeds last year - we don;t have anyone in county cricket who is going to bat like that.

I think people should given Peter Siddle some credit, he is pretty much the first bowler that has seriously troubled KP consistently in his career (forget those left-arm spinner dismissals - that was all in KPs mind). Its a bit like how Glen McGrath had Brian Lara & Atherton, Warne to Cullinan, Flintoff to Gilchrist, Harbhajan to Ponting etc.

Sometimes top batsmen find a bowler they just can't handle it & IMO that KP problem this series mainly - he certainly not in decline & all talk of him being axed, should be forcefully debunked.