'Bunch of Plunkers' - The Scrambled Minds of English Cricket

Liam Plunkett's recall for the England Lions is a perfect example of unclear thinking - © Nazly Ahmed 

English cricket may be at an all time low, and it’ll take more than a banning order to stop me saying so.

There was some good, and progressive news from the ECB this week as they announced the women’s team are to turn professional, but they are the one shining light in this dark-chasm of a winter.

The Ashes were lost in embarrassing fashion, but the off-field chaos has almost overshadowed this.

With the star-player axed, the coach gone, the captain under constant scrutiny and the team’s management structure all over the place, the hope is that rock bottom has now been reached.

Looking at the playing staff, there was more than a fair share of scrambled minds in Australia, with Joe Root looking a shadow of the confident and clear-thinking young man that burst onto the scene last year.

Matt Prior was also horribly out of sorts, and clear thinking seemed beyond the whole batting line-up at one point or another.

The fielding, a huge part of England becoming a world-beating side, was also slack and inept, another sign that concentration, focus and clear thought processes were all lacking.

James Anderson suggested that the harder England worked, the worse they got. Frankly I believe him, there was no lack of effort, but that is pretty much all you can say with any degree of positivity.

Unfortunately, this scrambled and confused thinking doesn’t seem to be restricted to the players.

The selection of Steven Finn alongside Chris Tremlett and Boyd Rankin for the Ashes tour proved to be as wrong as it was bizarre.

For different reasons, those selecting England’s side didn’t trust any of them, and because of this the touring party may as well have contained three sizeable paperweights.

There was more confused selecting and tactics on display in the one-day series Down Under, with Joe Root, Gary Ballance and Ian Bell all producing useful contributions, without scoring quickly, or batting right through the innings.

There was a similar story in the field, with Cook’s field set for one plan and the bowling following something entirely different on numerous occasions. It felt about as well planned as Danny Dyer showing up at Downton Abbey.

England’s team chopped, and changed, and there was a clear indication that individual players did not know their roles.

Death bowling was not properly co-ordinated, and there was not a plan in place to score big runs. (Other than the traditional English plan of batting slowly for 40 overs and hoping Morgan and Buttler can rescue things at the end.)

Now the fall-out from the winter is taking hold and changes are occurring, there remains much confusion regarding the path forwards.

This is not designed to be a personal attack, but I think England’s bizarre decision-making can be summed up by the selection of Graham Onions and Liam Plunkett in the Lions side touring Sri Lanka.

Onions is now 31, and despite a brilliant country season, was overlooked for the tour of Australia. So why is he in a development side?

We know how good he is, we know the conditions he excels in, he should not be in that team.

Even stranger is the selection of Plunkett.

Plunkett is 28, and therefore also not the stereotypical man to play in a development side in which you are looking to produce and look-at international cricketers.

However, being 28 should not rule out selection, but the fact his international career took place seven years ago probably should.

His career has taken a more cheerful direction since his move to Yorkshire, but 36 First Class wickets at an average of 28 this year doesn’t stand out, so why are we going back to him?

He was given a chance in the winter of 2005, and the following two English summers, and despite not excelling then, and his career freefalling since, England have taken him to the subcontinent.

I don’t think Plunkett should get in the England Test team again, and more importantly I don’t think he will get in it again, so for the life of me I can’t understand him being in Sri Lanka.

Whoever becomes England’s next coach needs to oversee some top-down, clear planning and stop providing me with such obvious things to question.

It might do me out of a blogging topic, but at least I might benefit as an England fan.

(Originally posted on Sports Gazette) Ashes Review - England's route forward

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 1^st 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

The 5th Ashes Test - Humiliation complete (And How)

Carberry's bat snaps like England's resistance - © Sky Sports Cricket (Twitter)

Having won the toss, losing a Test match inside three days is almost an achievement.

Yet again England started well with the ball, and yet again Australia’s lower middle-order and tail led a recovery that was followed by an English batting aberration.

Not only have Australia regained the Ashes, but they did it by handing out a 5-0 beating to an English side that went into the series as strong favourites.

Journalists and fans (and those that are a bizarre combination of the both, like Piers Morgan) have taken to every available medium to criticise the team for their performance, their attitude and their bravery.

If there is a word in the semantic field of embarrassment that is yet to be used then please share it with me.

The fifth and final Test was a beautiful metaphor for the series as whole. The bowling was promising without being clinical, the batting was dreadful and wickets fell in alarming clusters without a meaningful upper-order contribution, and the whole thing was finished after three-fifths of the allotted time.

The pitch was grassy and the green tinge was enough to convince Alastair Cook that with his only won toss of the series, he should bowl first.

This was arguably the right decision, because despite the pitch playing fairly well and offering turn as the game developed, Anderson moved it around early, and Broad and Stokes were also among the wicket takers as Australia slumped to 97/5.

Unfortunately five wickets down meant that Brad Haddin joined Steve Smith at the crease, the England bowling became shorter and less potent as Australia’s Mr Consistent jumped into one-day mode.

Haddin’s 75 supported Steve Smith’s second century of the series, and after a century stand, the last four wickets put on another hundred and Australia had reached a competitive 326.

Due to Australia’s quick scoring; there was of course still time for England to lose a wicket before the close on day one. Carberry guided Johnson into the waiting hands at leg gully for a duck.

From a promising first session and a half, England were on a mission to capitulate on day two.

Cook left a straight one to fall LBW and Anderson the night-watchman went as well to provide further momentum. Bell and Pietersen’s painstaking single-figure innings led England to 23/5.

A few lusty blows from Stuart Broad complimented the grit displayed by Ben Stokes in his 47, who batted alongside Gary Balance and Jonny Bairstow as they both made 18, as England scraped past the follow-on target.

This was another opportunity for Australia to play the aggressive ‘brand’ of cricket that had proven so effective so far…

In England Chris Rogers rarely sets a match alight when playing for Middlesex, and he played in a similar circumspect way in the summer Ashes series.

As he has grown into his role in this team, the veteran opener has looked more free scoring, but this innings was a thing of beauty. He required only 169 balls in making his 119, regularly striking more than one boundary in wayward overs.

He was supported by George Bailey whose 46 was the next biggest contribution, but frankly it wouldn’t have mattered if the other ten had contributed only 46 between them, it was Rogers’ day and the result was already beyond doubt.

England’s second innings lasted less than 32 overs as they collapsed within three days, and whilst Stokes and Broad provided some late entertainment with six sixes between them, it was a shameful end to an embarrassing tour.

There was a nice moment of mirth when Carberry’s bat snapped clean in two playing a routine defensive stroke, it nicely analogised the way Australia’s bowlers had broken England’s resistance.

Keep an eye on www.sportsgazette.co.uk over the next couple of weeks as the group of us analyse the horror in further detail.

Horror stories, double-headed coins and 4-0 - An Ashes catch up

The cauldron of capitulation - A World Record crowd watched on Boxing Day at the MCG - © Simon Helle Nielsen

I’ll start with the cheer and then resume the misery, happy New Year, may 2014 bring less batting collapses and a few won tosses…

A new approach to Ashes blogging, same old result for England. I have allowed time for reflection and for frustration to fall, but unfortunately it hasn’t.

Now 4-0 down, and watching Mitchell Johnson cradle his 3^rd Man of the Match award of the series, the English language is running out of negative vocabulary.

Due to technical difficulties, combined with the fact the Sports Gazette team are strewn across Europe and the Middle East, our live blog was a no-go for the fourth Test.

I decided that rather than produce five days of miserable conjecture in which I desperately search for positives, one post would suffice, and time would be needed for digestion.

So on the eve of the fifth test, and the final part of England’s horror-film Test match tour, it’s time.

For a while, it looked as if my enforced standing-down had resulted in a change of luck for England, but hope has just led to increased despair. (As Grant Yardley’s day-by-day descriptions neatly illustrate.)

Yet again Alastair Cook stood miserably as he watched Michael Clarke win the toss, and my mind wandered to an Only Fools and Horses episode in which Rodney called tails despite knowing it was a double-headed coin, I’m not sure Cook would see the humour in the comparison.

On this occasion, tradition got the better of Clarke. The MCG is often a good place to bowl first, the drop-in pitch looked a tad green and Australia would bowl first.

Batting first, for the first time in the series, England posted a disappointing 255.

Whilst it was below par on a pitch that had offered less than Clarke had hoped for, it did at least demonstrate a change. Brad Haddin hadn’t yet batted England out of a game, and it was their highest first-innings score of the tour.

With Australia behind in a match for the first time in the series, and with the England bowlers finally having some runs to defend, something new happened, a contest.

For the first time since The Oval Test this summer, Australia’s aggressive batting came under some kind of scoreboard pressure, and it faltered.

Wickets for Anderson, Broad and Bresnan, as well as one for Ben Stokes saw Australia collapse for 204 despite Haddin’s customary fifty.

Starting the second innings with a 51run lead, Alastair Cook went on the attack, his quick fifty was supported well by the more reserved Michael Carberry, and the opening partnership of 65 took England’s lead to 116.

From this point the collapse was as impressive as it was startling, the openers both fell LBW and Joe Root ran himself out, before Ian Bell added the pièce de résistance. Chipping his first ball straight to Mitchell Johnson in embarrassing fashion.

Kevin Pietersen led a recovery with 49, but after Stokes and Bairstow had got in and got out, once again the tail was blown away with the last four batsmen contributing one between them.

Australia duly knocked off the runs, Chris Rogers scoring a well crafted hundred as he cements his own reputation as more than a blocker, and Shane Watson bludgeoned a half-century of his own.

In this Test, England had not wilted under scoreboard pressure after a big first innings total, they had taken the initiative and then handed it back to the Australian’s gift-wrapped neatly with a bow.

If this was the horror film I referred to earlier, it would be one in which the first hour was littered with deaths caused by a mysterious foe.

As the fifth Test in Sydney begins, the murderer will have been unveiled, and the supernatural element put to bed, but they rarely stop killing at this stage, they invariably go out with a bang…