 |
| The Kevin Pietersen debate is a big part of post-Ashes thinking © Andrew Sutherland |
The Sports Gazette Team round off the Ashes coverage with
some more conclusions and analysis.
After the third Test, as Australia regained the Ashes, The
Sports Gazette writers pulled apart the series to that point, and turned their
thoughts to future Test series’.
These were the teams selected for England’s first Test
against Sri Lanka in May:
Grant Yardley: Cook, Carberry,
Bell, Root, Ballance, Stokes, Prior, Broad, Anderson, Finn, Swann/Panesar
Simon Collings: Cook, Robson,
Root, Pietersen, Bell, Stokes, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn
Justin Feck: Cook, Carberry,
Root, Pietersen, Bell, Stokes, Prior, Swann, Broad, Anderson, Mills
Richard Jude: Cook, Carberry,
Trott/Bell, Bell/Morgan, Root, Stokes, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn
With the series now completed, and England’s fortunes having
turned from bad to worse, and now onto dreadful, some more questions have
arisen.
Both Flower and Cook
have repeatedly reaffirmed their desire to stay on. Is this right? And what do
they each have to do individually going forward in those roles?
Grant: I would be
inclined to stick with them both. Cook retains his post by default really as
there are no other logical contenders – Matt Prior is the vice-captain and lost
his place, while T20 skipper Stuart Broad is unlikely to get the nod as England
prefer their captain not to be a bowler. Flower is a trickier decision. The
players looked completely out of sorts in the series and I believe coaches
should and will be sacked. However, I would give the man who transformed
England into the best Test side in the world the chance to rebuild his squad.
Simon: I think that both Flower and Cook should stay on.
Personally, I do not blame either of them for England's Ashes demise. The 5-0
whitewash was a collective collapse from England, the team's fault. As such all
involved carry equal responsibility. It would be wrong to oust Cook and Flower,
what is needed is a change in personnel within the team - not the management.
Justin: Cook looks as if he is bereft of
ideas, his field placements are very cautious and timid as when England had
Australia on the ropes, he failed to push home their advantage. Andy Flower can
only take so much of the blame; the players he sent out onto the pitch
ultimately let him down when it really mattered. Admittedly, he should have
foreseen the problems that were brewing within the team such as Trott, as much
it would have been possible with him, and the Pietersen issue. The problem with replacing Cook and
Flower is who they would replace them with as there is no-one who is exactly
banging on the door for the job.
Richard: Flower can’t have suddenly become a bad coach
over night. He has been responsible for taking this side from the real low
points of Peter Moore’s leadership to back-to-back Ashes winners and number one
Test status. His relationship with Strauss was key to this, so Flower and Cook
have to work together to find the way forward. I think Cook is still finding
his feet as captain, and he just needs to learn to be less formulaic, one of
Michael Clarke’s strengths is going with his gut-instinct, Cook needs to trust
his.
Kevin Pietersen was
repeatedly criticised, but he was England’s top scorer, he wants to play to
2015, should he still be in the team or is his shot selection or attitude a
problem?
Grant: I was
hugely critical of Pietersen for the way he got himself dismissed in a couple
of innings when his team really needed him. Also, Flower doesn’t seem to get on
with him so he could be on his way out of the side. England need the man who is
still probably their best batsman though, especially at a time when plenty of
new faces will be brought in as it is. You wouldn’t want Pietersen to lose his
match-winning style of batting, but hopefully he can value his wicket more in
certain situations.
Simon: Pietersen
should definitely still be in the team, but whether this happens remains to be
seen. While he maybe criticised for his sometimes poor shot selection and game
management, he has that rare ability to take a match away from the opposition
in an hour of big hitting. We saw how the Australians benefitted from having
these 'express scorers', so England should keep Pietersen.
Justin: Pietersen
is a match winner, there is no doubt about that but when it comes to saving a
match, I wouldn’t put any money on him doing so. His style of play is to play
shots, and if England hope to change that they are mistaken. The only way
forward is to build the team either without him entirely, and start afresh or
build it around him with players who will keep the team in the match when the
going gets tough.
Richard: Too much
change in a hurry is rarely a good thing; Australia’s collapse after a host of
retirements in 2007 is testament to this. With the side already in a state of
flux, I would like to see Pietersen stay in the side. However, I would temper
this by suggesting he has the ability to frustrate the life out of even his
biggest fans, so if he could reign in some of his more kamikaze shot-selections
he would be doing everyone a favour.
Much of the talk
during the Ashes was of Australia’s aggressive brand of cricket, do England
need to change the way they play to change their results?
Grant: I think
they do and with younger, fresher faces in the side they may well do so.
Playing attritional cricket is all well and good when you have the better
players on wickets that suit your team but, as the latest series showed, it
doesn’t prepare you when you come up against different conditions. That said,
it is easier to play in an aggressive manner when you posses genuinely quick
bowlers.
Simon: This is a
difficult question, as what type of cricketers a country produces depends a lot
on the conditions there. Australia is home to hard, bouncy wickets, hence the
vast production line of quick bowlers. Conditions in England are suited to
swing bowling, as we do not have these hard pitches. So in reality, we can't
really change the way we play as it suits our country.
Justin: England
need to be far more positive, at points when they were being positive they had
Australia against the ropes. The best example being Ben Stokes - who came into
the side and played aggressive yet controlled cricket and scored a impressive
hundred and took 6 wickets in the first innings of the last test match.
Richard: You
can’t change the make-up of a side overnight, but England’s tendency to get
stuck when batting, or quickly run out of ideas in the field is worrying. The
tactic of boring batsman out with Shane Watson and Peter Siddle was as
predictable as it was successful in this series, and when you combine that with
Johnson’s explosive pace, England went nowhere at times. It is possible to find
a middle ground between waiting for things to happen, and throwing your wicket
away, and England will need to find that going forward.
Have any careers been
ended by this Ashes series?
Grant: It would
take an exceptional ODI series for Michael Carberry for him to retain his Test
place, while Jonathan Trott’s future depends on his mental-health issues. I
think dropping Matt Prior has actually extended his career and called Jonny
Bairstow’s credentials into question. On the bowler-front, I think the
selectors will look to rawer and quicker pacemen over the likes of Chris
Tremlett and Boyd Rankin, though Steven Finn will get another opportunity when
he gets his rhythm back.
Simon: I think
Michael Carberry's career maybe over, simply due to his age. I would like to
see Sam Robson of Middlesex come into the opening slot, giving him the chance
to develop within the international set up. I fear that Pietersen's career may
also be over, although I strongly hope this is not the case.
Justin: Yes! Graeme Swann retired part way
through the series but he left on his own terms. Whether Jonathan Trott can
come back we shall see in due course. Of the team that ended the 5th test,
natural wastage will see Anderson, Pietersen, Bell, Carberry and Prior all move on within the
next few years. I can’t see Monty Panesar’s England career lasting much longer
either.
Richard: Swann’s
already gone, and I think that may be it for Chris Tremlett. He didn’t do a
whole lot wrong in the first Test, but lacked the X Factor from the last series
down under and was quickly binned. Michael Carberry was heavily criticised for
getting a lot of starts, but not going on, and as he is on the wrong side of 30
anyway, he may struggle to nail down a place for the summer. Another man
dropped was Matt Prior, but I believe he will get another go, along with
Stephen Finn once he finds his action and pace. At the other end of the scale,
on the back of his one-day form, I would still like to see Eoin Morgan get the
chance to resurrect his Test career.
2 more Test defeats
under the belt… What is your team NOW looking forward to the 1st
Test v Sri Lanka this summer?
Grant: Cook,
Root/Carberry, Bell, Pietersen, Ballance/Root, Stokes, Prior, Broad, Anderson,
Panesar, Finn
Simon: Cook,
Robson, Root, Pietersen, Bell, Stokes, Prior, Broad, Anderson, Panesar,
Finn
Justin: Cook, Robson, Bell, Pietersen,
Ballance, Prior, Stokes, Broad, Anderson, Finn and un-named spinner, possibly
Borthwick.
Richard: Cook,
Root, Bell, Pietersen, Morgan, Stokes, Prior, Bresnan, Broad, Anderson, Panesar
No comments:
Post a Comment