Over the last few days, the nation has gone into paroxysms of deep celebration, as England pulled off a mighty victory against an impressive West Indies team. Few could have ever hoped for them to scale such heights of majesty, and fewer still to predict it. No wonder the press have gone overboard about it all.
Or perhaps not.
It’s a curious situation. In advance of the Test series, a certain member of the fifth estate was including three victories in his notorious “11 from 17” prediction for the next year, and many others were not much less gung ho. That one may have been something of an outlier, but there’s no doubt at all that the response to England’s win seems entirely out of keeping to what had been expected to be a comfortable series win in the first place.
Is that a trifle churlish? Maybe it is. Certainly England arrived on the last day without having much right to expect a victory, and James Anderson bowled one of those spells to first create an opening, and then to ram home the advantage. Equally, the West Indies were trying to do the right thing, by being positive and not getting stuck in a hole as England themselves have done so often, but they didn’t quite get the balance right – and some injudicious shots hastened their demise.
All of which leaves us where exactly?
England go into the final Test a match up, and it’s worth noting that Dinesh Ramdin has asked for a pitch with pace and bounce. Had they got away with the draw in Grenada, you don’t need to be on the inside track of the West Indies team to recognise that’s the last thing they would have wanted. Even so, that’s the prerogative of the home side, and it does mean at least that we might have some interesting cricket in Barbados. The criticism of the pitch in St Georges was much overdone – essentially it was fine when England were doing well on it, and boring and turgid when they couldn’t take wickets. So often, the domestic press are England’s worst enemy, trying to claim black is white and vice versa, and assuming the readership is either myopic or unintelligent. Hype is not necessary, it was a good win.
I can forgive Peter Moores for going a little over the top in his response to success. He would have felt under severe pressure himself that final morning, and the relief of victory would have been keenly appreciated.
Of course, Alastair Cook has been praised to the skies, in the way we knew we would be. Again, the written press really aren’t helping here with the hyperbole. His final day captaincy was decent enough alright, but continual reminders that it was reasonable enough by the Sky commentary team merely drew attention to it being often otherwise. The implication was quite clear, in Cook’s case being competent is worthy of having attention drawn to it. Since when has being competent been notable unless it’s not often the case?
And then there’s his batting. He did look a little bit better in this Test compared to the first, where he frankly looked all over the shop. Runs in themselves will do him the power of good, and will also give him confidence in his method. But it’s still not the Cook of old; he’s fighting it constantly – his head remains too far over to the offside and he doesn’t look balanced in his shot. Clearly the loss of Jerome Taylor to the West Indies attack was a huge bonus for him – but that’s the luck of the draw and few could begrudge him that. So the runs were welcome – let’s be clear on this, to have a chance in the summer we need Cook back to his best – but nor do they merit an assumption that all is now well with him, because it isn’t. Looked at benignly, it is a work in progress, and I doubt too many bowlers in Sydney and Auckland are panicking about their plans just yet.
Jonathan Trott may come under pressure for his place in the final Test, and this is not remotely fair on him. He’s not an opener, he is a number three. The jobs are not the same, not least because the number three has a bit more time to relax after coming in from fielding. Having brought him back to do that role, to drop him after two Tests would be tantamount to ending his career having handed him a hospital pass and complaining when he dropped it. Nor would it be particularly fair on Adam Lyth who would presumably take over. He’d have a single Test and as we know, things can change when it comes to the home summer. He’d be under pressure to score in this match, and fully aware that his predecessor had been dumped after two games. Selecting Trott to open may well have been the wrong decision in the first place, but having done so, three Tests is the absolute minimum he should expect – and more reasonably he should get the New Zealand series too.
Of the other players, Joe Root is showing signs of being of genuinely exceptional quality. Certainly there are bigger challenges for him over the coming summer than he’s faced in Tests the last year, but it’s hard to argue with the numbers on this. He is rapidly becoming our key player. And in that, he’s only just ahead of Gary Ballance, who has made a superb start to his Test career. As an aside, when looking at a technical set up, Ballance is an excellent contrast to Cook at the moment – there’s no expectation of similarity of course, but Ballance is….well beautifully balanced.
Moeen Ali did not bowl well, and of course ran himself out for a duck. OK, the run out happens, few have avoided the odd brain fade in their careers, and Anderson’s was worse. His bowling looked reflective of someone who had hardly bowled, which is of course the case. I note Nasser Hussain’s thoughts about it potentially being a reversion to the mean, and of course that is quite possible. But a little premature to say so after one poor match post-injury.
Buttler’s keeping was overall excellent. However, as Graeme Fowler observed, his gloves close at the time of the shot when standing up to the stumps. That’s not good technique, and is something that Peter Moores himself ought to be able to have corrected. Maybe he’s on to it.
Stuart Broad was a proper curate’s egg in this match, and indeed in the series so far. His overall pace is way down, but he’s equally bowled some sharp and hostile spells. He also seems to attract a lot of negative comment even though his form as a bowler has been very strong for England in Tests. He’s more or less the only established player to come out of the Ashes shambles with his reputation intact. He deserves time to get it right.
Ben Stokes showed promise. That’s where we still are with him. Likewise Chris Jordan.
And Anderson. He’s not a great bowler, not by any stretch of the imagination. But so what? By definition hardly anyone is. He’s a very fine, exceptionally skilled bowler who can occasionally be completely unplayable. It should be enough and shouldn’t be a stick with which to beat him.
And then there’s someone who didn’t play, but became a topic of conversation – Adil Rashid. Geoff Boycott talked about the situation whereby the selectors choose a squad, but that the team on tour is chosen by captain and coach. And if captain and coach don’t rate a player, then there’s little point in them being selected. I don’t wish to put words in Boycott’s mouth, as he chose them very carefully, but it seemed to indicate this was the position with Rashid, and perhaps that’s why Yorkshire requested his release from the tour. England were right to rebuff them by the way. The question of his selection and whether he ever had a chance of playing is a valid one, but the selectors having done so he’s on the tour and should stay on the tour.
For the West Indies, there are signs of promise. Developing and struggling teams are always prone to a collapse, particularly when kept under pressure. They were and they did. But Brathwaite looked a proper Test batsman, Samuels batted mostly responsibly – well more responsibly than normal – and they fought hard. There are some green shoots perhaps. Let’s hope they sprout.
And so we move to the final Test. A win and England can say they’ve done alright. And they will have done alright. You can only beat what’s in front of you. A draw is problematic, and a defeat, well a defeat and there will be consequences. England are a better side than the West Indies, even though they have significant problems of their own. They should win, they ought to win.
And yet….
Being Outside Cricket 
I don’t suppose it will happen, but I don’t really see why England shouldn’t move Trott down to number 5, and move everybody else up by one place. with Ballance opening. People always say it’s a bad idea to move a batsman from a position where he’s doing well, and Ballance and Root could scarcely be doing any better. But that seems a questionable position. Why keep a player in a position where he isn’t doing well, when there is a chance of his doing better in another one?
LikeLike
Ballance is no more an opener than Trott is. It would be trying a different square peg in the same round hole.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure. His approach seems unhurried and very sound early in his innings. He effectively opened in the 2nd innings in Grenada. He’s opened in the past for Yorkshire Academy and in FC cricket in Zimbabe – well, ok, no big deal there, but even Boycott seems to think he could do it, judging by comments he made on TMS. Unless we try it, we won’t know of course.
LikeLike
Because there is no particular need for Trott to be in the team. We have numbers 3-5 basically sorted for the time being and the only potential vacancy is at 2. If Trott can’t make it there, we say thanks for an excellent test career and move on.
LikeLike
One point West Indies had in common with India in their last three Tests is that both were playing entirely negatively, looking for draws. India were trying to hang on to 1-0. West Indies would have been content with 0-0 in this series. Sri Lanka made the same mistake at Lord’s and nearly paid the price – but had the experience and the quality to change their approach at Headingley.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens when a team attacks this new era England. Maybe West Indies will try in Barbados but I fear damage limitation mode might take over. We may have to wait until NZ and Australia.
LikeLike
I like this point Simon. I tried to make a similar point the other day. Put simply, I believe the positivity and attacking mindset of teams like NZ and AUS will overwhelm a number of the current England team, leading to us losing.
I am reminded of KP at Lords in 2005. His positive intent and clear indication that he was not in awe of the great AUS team, saw him play 2 excellent debut innings of skill, bravado and of great encouragement to his team mates. All of this against the backdrop of attacking, ‘in your face cricket’ from AUS. Anyway, players like Trescothick, Strauss, Flintoff et al all fronted up in that series and fed off of KP’s escapades (and it has to be said, Harmisons new ball spell in that first AUS innings at Lords) in the first test. The rest is history.
This current England team is different. I could well see someone like Root standing up to AUS, like KP did, but I do not see enough other players of that kind of quality and with the ability to attack to back him up. When the pressure is on, many England players will be overwhelmed at crucial moments, you know the key phases of play that win or lose test matches. They will revert to slow steady accumulation of runs and become stymied….
This may sound negative and I really hope I am wrong, but the current make up and experience of the team worry me. Too many builders/accumulators at the top and weak second change bowling……
LikeLike
Strange you say that; one of the Australians – Gillespie, I think – said almost the same thing the other day, that when KP debuted at Lord’s it was the first time anyone had really attacked them, put them off their stride, and it made them uncomfortable. He was doing to them what they had made a speciality of doing to everyone else.
LikeLike
Well, we’ve already seen how this team responds to attacking cricket haven’t we? This is, by and large, the same group of players that rolled over in Oz: one thing’s for sure – we can’t expect any on-pitch leadership. Ben Stokes played the KP role in Perth, I’d expect him to raise his game, so too Buttler. Root and Ballance are the big unknowns. Personally I can’t see past the Aussies steamrollering us again, can you imagine Cook and Trott up against the Mitch’s and Harris?
LikeLike
Thing is, this has been West Indies playing much much better than they’d done in Tests for more than 2 years, I’d say. And at the start of the 5th day there was still a chance of declaring at tea 250 ahead with 35 overs left, which would have been fun. …and I’d even claim that if Taylor was able to play the last test and if WI had won the toss, keeping everything else the same…
I think WI have collectively batted not much worse (if at all) than England but bowled substantially worse, so couldn’t really do much more than shoot for a draw and hope for mistakes anyway. A different selection could improve this but it would involve iconoclasm. I think WI selectors are trying out some ideas too.
LikeLike
” the response to England’s win seems entirely out of keeping to what had been expected to be a comfortable series win in the first place.”
Far too logical M’Lord.
You are judging through a reasonable frame, but the English cricket media are not driven by the same reasonable analysis. You see for them everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is about just 2 men. Keeping one in as captain, and stoping an other from getting back in the team. Nothing else matters.
Encouraging an improving team is not important. Just doing enough to keep Cook in situ and the other bloke out is the criteria. This win, however unexpected entering the last day will guarantee Cook will lead England into the Ashes. That means the uppity one will be kept out for the summer. Another year ticks by. Mission accomplished.
It’s exactly the same over the top reaction as we had last year against India. And for the same reasons. It is why the media can not, and will not criticise Cook for his batting or his captaincy. Until KP announces his retirement this issue is all that matters to the in house cricket crayon scribblers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m no-one’s Lord 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry , I just assumed it was his lordship. Should have paid attemtion to the authors name. I forgot its not a one man show anymore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We need to prep our readership more.
LikeLike
great post
LikeLike
I started reading and was thinking this is good stuff Dmitri, then thought I better just check! I did and realised I was reading Vian, good sign that both are similar in presentation of their writing style and glad I am not the only one to think this!
On that note, Vian, this is a very balanced article, I enjoyed reading it, it is very good indeed! I think my current view of England is far more critical, not saying that is right or wrong, just the way I see things.
I hope the runs for Cook do turn out to be a good thing, we do need a solid opener performing well, as you say. I can’t cut Moores any slack, however, I just believe he should not have been re-appointed and for me, from the moment he was, it was all wrong.
LikeLike
Have to agree with every word Vian. The press are compelled to go over the top with everything, whether it’s sport or vicar runs off with organist. Yes, England did the sort of efficient job you’d hope for against the number 8 team with players missing. Yes, I’ve got good feelings about the potential of Root and Ballance.
I’m concerned about the motivation for bringing Trott back. I just don’t see him as part of England’s future. I’d like them to settle in Hales (new Tresco?) or Lees. Agree that Cook back to his best would be handy, as it would have been over the past 2 years. Wonder if it will happen.
Agree about Broad. I think he’s a real trier but I don’t believe he’s very clever.
I too am hoping WI are showing some hopeful signs. Add a lively quickie and a batsman with flair and they’d be going places. Mind you, I think the same for England.
LikeLike
If you don’t rejoice, you’re not a “real fan”, and you’re probably an absolute …. as well:
LikeLike
Flower, Strauss, Moores & Cook
It’s the perfect combination if you want no risk, boring cricket, where knowing your place is more important than individuality.
Wonderful, I can hardly wait. The Fab Four of no change.
LikeLike
Strauss isn’t going to get it. There are people briefing that he might in the hope that it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy, but there is just no way that Harrison/Graves will appoint him.
At the moment Stewart is IMO the likelier bet. Good pedigree in playing and management, solid, respected, independent-minded. Vaughan has too many conflicts of interest.
LikeLike
I think you’re right, Simon. I hope so. Vaughan would let in some fresh air but he’s all about Michael Vaughan, really. Strauss is way too close to recent history and hasn’t done himself any favours by being a dull commentator.
LikeLike
What about Flower? Coaching the Lions cannot be his destiny.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/665959.html
LikeLike
if it’s Flower in the new job, I really will give up on Alastair’s Cook’s England (TM) and will henceforth only support the women’s team.
Clare Connor would probably be really good in that job, but I expect she has too much sense to want it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Zephirine
We might all join you..
Just for clarity, I am not suggesting this, I am just very suspicious on how it became quiet around Flower, whom I believe planned his exit as coach very carefully (for a.o family reasons). As he planned leaving very carefully Zimbabwe. And on his exit he (again) played his ace.
But that I do not believe for a moment he is content with a job at Loughborough or with the Lions.
And would it not be good to see an ECB as a meritocracy where talented individuals with a passion for the game lead (like Clare). Here is to hope.
LikeLike
Brenkley:
“Moeen exemplifies the way this team has been built in the past year, perhaps more wisely than has been widely acknowledged. Maybe it was with the Ashes in mind. Of the 11 who won on Saturday, five had played more than 50 Tests (three of them more than a hundred), five in 10 or fewer, with Joe Root in between on 23.
The balance feels right and it must have been calculated a year ago that this is what would happen”.
So having one player who’s played between 10 and 50 times was some masterstroke of long-term planning? Saints preserve us…..
Credit to the selectors for some good calls (Root down the order, Ballance and Ali in) but the circumstances of Buttler’s selection, for example, seem airbrushed from history. Presumably Finn, Panesar and that revolving door of openers were all part of keeping that balance feeling just right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It beggars belief that He thinks this is all genius planning. But then it doesnt really surprise me. This is the ECB Pravda. They have to keep telling us Cook/Moores are both geniuses.
The truth is most of the test wins against India, and now this test against WI is down to one man. Jimmy Andeson. Without his bowling it would have been a complete clusterf**k.
LikeLike
Although the Windies are a poor side, they are often hard to beat at home. They often these days get rolled overseas but never seem to lose 0-3 at home. A 2-0 win here to England will be a quite good result, despite the weaknesses of the opposition. The comments here seem to be fairly pessimistic (for generally good reason) but there are some good things happening in English cricket at the moment and its great to see Vian acknowledge them. An over reliance on Anderson to win matches doesn’t bode well though.
With the Windies although you can find some promise in the batting, the bowling is a shambles. Before the series started I thought Cook would make runs, simply because although the Windies bowlers know where to bowl to him they wouldn’t be able to do it consistently.
LikeLike
I expected 2-0 before the tournament and still do. England has enough individual talent to make a difference against a side of WI’s calibre.
LikeLike
I see Vaughan has gone all-in on the “Strong Cook = Strong England” hand at the Telegraph. Are there any dissenters, or even sceptics, left outside blogging land?
Inconvenient facts department, bumper edition:
– All three home Ashes victories this century came without a major contribution from Cook. He wasn’t there in 2005, he had a top score of 95 in 2009 and never passed 80 in 2013.
– When he was there he averaged below 30 in both series, this in a side that won five of the ten Tests he played, losing only one.
– Both of his opening partners scored big hundreds; Root won a match award, Strauss (imo) should have; Strauss won a series award.
– Three other English batsmen made five centuries between them across the ten matches he played in 2009 and 2013.
– Two English batsmen (other than Cook) with Ashes centuries will line up for the whole of this series, injury permitting (Bell and Root). It might even be three, four or five such men (add in order of likelihood Stokes, Trott and you-know-who).
– In four out of five such cases, their last Ashes century is more recent than Cook’s, which was eleven matches or four years ago. Only Trott’s is less recent.
And yet (*sigh*) still it goes on. And on.
LikeLike
Methinks that Vaughan realises he won’t get Director of Cricket job unless he cuddles up to Cook – at least initially – all these magnificent recent 50’s means Cook is ‘captain’ for the summer…
LikeLike
So the clear-the-air meeting between Cook and Vaughan was reported not to have gone well, and now Vaughan is going pro-Cook. I wonder if Agnew will be next, after being told off for daring to say anything nice about The Other.
It would be very bizarre indeed if it wasn’t laughable.
LikeLike
Cook is like the character Brian out of Monty Pythons Life of Brian.
“He’s not the messiah, he’s a vey naughty boy.”
But the fanatics in the cricket media won’t have it. To them he is the chosen one.
I find it vomit inducing all these grown men bending at the knee to this charlatan.
LikeLike
You, with your evidence-based observations and no opportunity to go out for a corrective dinner with him, are a Cook hater. I, with my inconvenient facts and historian’s respect for sources on both sides, am a Cook hater.
By contrast, those who over the course of two to six years use a position of privilege to rubbish a player of equivalent standing are “well-informed”.
LikeLike
Speaking of the so called “well-informed” I notice in Selveys tweet about the special knowledge he has, but can’t reveal, he makes an extraordinary claim……..
He says that those on his side are “out gunned in PR terms”. This is priceless. Where are all these pro KP people and Cook haters in the MSM? They have complete monopoly of the message in all newspapers. It’s only us outsiders who have gone against the received wisdom, and as we have been told …….we are irrelevent.
LikeLike
Re ‘outgunned in PR terms’ – Mike Selvey has repeatedly referred to Pietersen’s ‘PR machine’.
The implication seems to be that the nasty KP has so much money he can afford to hire an army of representatives to put his case, unlike the sainted Cook who of course gives all his millions to charity, has no notion of commercial motives and has no management or PR agent of his own.
The only thing is, the said KP PR machine is not exactly visible and if it exists it hasn’t been doing much. He gets a lot of coverage in the media but it’s almost all been either ambivalent or downright hostile.
LikeLike
Pietersen’s PR has been rubbish. Piers Morgan has been largely counterproductive and the book could have been less vindictive.
If the ECB and the likes of Selvey are losing to this, then it says everything about them.
LikeLike
My absolute contempt for that line of argument is undying.
As if Piers Morgan, that most universally popular of individuals, along with the untrammelled power of nasty “social media” and those fair and balanced upstarts on Cricinfo, has orchestrated a groundswell of support for a leading England batsman which not even the combined might of the “proper journos” of the written press, Sky and the BBC have been able to “outgun”.
Do me a favour. There are just too many people around who never bought what Mike and his mates were selling. They were warned in August 2012: the Guardian BTL was a perfect dress rehearsal for what was to come. Pietersen was certainly “outgunned in PR terms” over textgate, yet still people raised valid points that were never addressed, and the eventual sacking still provoked anger and dissent on this scale.
LikeLike
If Taylor plays (anyone know?) and the pitch has something in it then the Windies are in with a chance. Obviously Stokes and Jordan will be more of a handful on a bouncy pitch, but even so England have got the one bowler (Anderson) on either side with the skills to get wickets on horrible decks. So there’s no point trying to bore England out. Windies have to blast them out, and see if they can’t score some runs themselves.
I’d bring in Taylor (for Holder) and Shai Hope for Chanderpaul, win the toss, bat, try to get 300, blow England away, bat again, spin ’em out with Bishoo.
Easy on paper.
LikeLike
I seem to remember the Sky guys saying taylor was doing light training during the last test which suggests that it was not a series ending injury?
Hopefully he will be back as WI looked more potent with him.
LikeLike
Lots of good sense – but I disagree about Yorkshire and Rashid.
England have a long record of not picking Rashid and of fiddling with his action.
You can’t deny a player the right to try for the team, every player’s dream and all that.
But if he’s not going to be picked, getting Rashid out of there asap is basically just looking after your investment in the player. If nothing else it would be criminal stupidity of Yorkshire not to ask.
And frankly, if the Yorkshire 4 aren’t going to be selected for the final match (Lyth, Plunkett, Rashid, Bairstow) then it’s time for them to come home and play some cricket. It’s not doing them any good to sit around watching.
It’s not the 19th century any more – esp. for a WI tour – you can call someone up and have them in to play (witness Ali) with barely more lead time (a day or so) than if they had to travel down from Durham. And given the rules on substitutes, there’s no reason for non-11 players to be there anyway, other than specialist fielders…
LikeLike
I have no problem at all with Yorkshire asking, just that I believe England are right to say no, having chosen him for the squad. I agree with you about the point that England seem to be selecting him without any intention of playing him, and that’s an issue, and one Boycott was alluding to.
LikeLike
Does Rashid have a central contract? If he doesn’t I guess that makes the county a little bit more peeved because they are paying his wages and he is sitting in the sun in the WI.
I suspect there are one or two conspiracy theories up in Yorshire after the bust up with the ECB and the banning of their captain. Then the ECB select 4 Yorkies and dont pick them. But seeing as Graves is now at the the ECB, it is unlikely.
Just seems a wasted opportunity to me. Maybe he isn’t good enough. No doubt they will suddenly bring him in half way through the Ashes at 2-0 down. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
I’ve said repeatedly that I think Rashid is only on the cusp of being good enough.
But that really means you either have to give him a go, or not put him in the squad.
Squad and not playing is just a waste. If you don’t trust him, pick someone you can trust for the squad. There is no way that Tredwell was the right player to play the first game of this series. We learned nothing by that.
LikeLike
The problem with Trott is that it’s not particularly good sense to throw in a new opener into an Ashes series. So if we’re sticking the Trott for NZ, we’re sticking with him for the summer (bar a total shocker – which so far can’t be ruled out). So, much like Cook in ODIs, we’re wasting every chance to prepare…
LikeLike
Yep. England have got themselves in a hole. Again.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t at all surprise me if they pick Lees for the NZ tests and jump over poor Lyth.
Still, he’ll always have the memory of wearing his blazer at the airport…..
LikeLike
One of my worries is that Cook and Trott both struggle & get out cheaply. We would literally be playing with 9. That just means that Eng will likely choose all rounders who can cover for early failures, rather than choosing the best players (be they batsmen or bowlers).
What that you say – its already happening?
LikeLike