Not very many days ago, for England to be 2-1 down after three matches would have been considered something of a triumph, given how low the expectations were. It’s curious how quickly expectations rise, and given the football team have just won their sixth straight qualifying match and finished the season unbeaten, it’s quite likely that the same sort of thing will happen there.
England – the cricket variety, though it’s true of the football team as well – did a fair bit wrong today in all three disciplines of the game, but there’s far more they continued to do right, and a degree of acceptance and understanding is arguably fitting.
From 288-5 to 302 all out is certainly a collapse, yet the disappointment at only getting 300 was remarkable to see. It’s the first time England have ever scored 300 three matches in succession, and we’re disappointed. Not just the supporters either, England themselves were plainly extremely unhappy with the way they fell away. Good. So they should be. But it’s anything but a disaster. In the first match England were 202-6, and went for it. On that occasions it came off, and the score rocketed to over 400; on this occasion it went wrong. If we’re to praise the buccaneering spirit that allowed them the freedom to attack on that occasion, we do need to accept it can go wrong sometimes. That doesn’t mean that they can’t learn from it, because there are many things they could have done better. But what mustn’t happen is that they are criticised for recklessness, because it was no more or less reckless than it was at Edgbaston, it’s just that on that occasion it worked out and this time it went wrong.
It might have horrible echoes of “executing their skills better”, but sometimes it is about the execution and not the mindset. A gentle reminder to try and hit that particular ball over long on rather than across the line to deep midwicket for example is approving of the intent completely, but trying to better the specific way in which it’s done, and definitely not making anyone scared of trying it or getting out. For the reality is that teams who are capable of scoring 400 and who are looking to reach that kind of target do sometimes screw up. To screw up and still score 302 isn’t all that bad – if we go back to the omnishambles of the World Cup, England patted themselves on the back for a total like that. This time they’re unhappy with it. Perhaps that’s the most promising thing of all.
There is always a temptation to be wise after the event, and judge on outcome rather than intent. When a batsman clears long on, just over the head of the fielder stationed there, then the cry of “great shot” goes up. If he fractionally mistimes it, and it lands in that fielders hands, then often it’s called irresponsible with the fielder there waiting. Yet if it’s irresponsible then, it’s just as irresponsible when it goes for six – it can’t only be irresponsible based on the outcome. But few would ever say that when it sailed into the stand. For many of the late dismissals, if you were to freeze frame it as the shot was played, it’s not necessarily the wrong shot, it’s just not been played that well. You have to ask, in that freeze frame, if it sails for six who is going to say it was the wrong thing to do? The answer is no one. It’s still a bad shot of course, but often the right shot played badly, which isn’t quite the same thing.
Now, none of that means you absolve England of any blame, but it does highlight the very narrow margins that are there when playing a high risk, extremely attacking game. England are just three matches into this kind of approach, and they are going to get it wrong sometimes at this stage. So should they have decided to be more conservative when half the side was out? Had they taken that approach at Edgbaston, they’d have ended up with around 300, and that’s what the old England would have done.
What England do need to do is do exactly what they are doing, but just look to do it better. The judgement about what a good score is on any given pitch will come, and as they get more used to the way they are playing, so will the shot selection. If we want them to shoot for the moon, then we need to show a little patience when they don’t quite manage it. Especially when playing a side like New Zealand, who we must remember are more than a bit useful.
Having said that about the batting, the catching is something that unquestionably will have to improve. England had their chances in this game and didn’t take them. It can happen in any game, but there’s been a worrying propensity to shell them in all formats of the game. As to why that is, it’s one of cricket’s mysteries quite why dropping catches seems to be a communicable disease, but it’s one that self-evidently needs curing rapidly. Switching confidence on is the only way of doing so – and here is where the coaches earn their pay.
The bowling is a much more uncertain area than the batting. Mark Wood was the pick of the seam attack, and worries around him are more about a fear of England overbowling him than anything he’s doing on the field. The rest are having good moments and bad moments. Some of them won’t be good enough, but we can’t be sure who that is true of just yet. Having said that, Finn just doesn’t look the bowler he was, and as more time goes by, the fear that he won’t be getting that back grows ever stronger.
For New Zealand, they did what they do in One Day Cricket. Williamson and Taylor played superbly throughout. Their stand of 206 set a new record for the Black Caps for the third wicket, and by the time it was broken, the game was largely won. Sometimes the opposition play extremely well and you have to doff your cap. The question of how much is inadequate bowling and how much superb batting is always an open one.
The fourth match is Nottingham on Wednesday, and what will happen is anyone’s guess. But if England play with the same intent, they have a chance. And a month or more ago, who would have thought that? So there we have it. An optimistic, favourable, forgiving view of England’s performance even though they lost. There must be something in the water to be so controversial. I do note that Derek Pringle disagrees with me, and Nasser Hussain agrees. I think I’ll take that.
Being Outside Cricket 
Great stuff TLG. Really enjoyed the most recent articles by you and Dimtri. Well thought out and critical, yet logical reasoning on almost all of the issues we have all raised over the past 2 years! Keep them coming.
With regards to this ‘new England’, for me I look no further than the absence of Cook, Broad and Anderson. I believe they were the true issue, not KP.
Cook’s captaincy was weak and still is, but especially so in ODI cricket. Under Cook, ODI England were run by Broad and Anderson. When Cook was jettisoned, I imagine Broad and Anderson still had a huge say. Morgan, new to the role, probably struggled to control the ‘senior’ duo; they probably did as they wished. With the ‘twins’ now gone, the team plays in Morgan’s way and image and clearly enjoy themselves.
They are a team I can finally enjoy watching again and, as TLG points out, they are easy to forgive as they play in the right way! I hope this is a long term change……
LikeLiked by 1 person
It could be that you have hit the nail on the head with what you say about Anderson and Broad. Do they now have a negative influence ?
Im also wondering what exactly Cook is thinking about this new approach to ODI cricket. Will he be able to say if asked that his approach and ideas along with the previous coach were out dated? it’s not long ago that he was saying that his leadership could have made the difference in the World cup. Im guessing that he can’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really hope a journalist puts that question to him.
LikeLike
I’m confident that nobody in the MSM will ask him. Which is a shame
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d add in that while I’m not convinced that Jordan is “ready for primetime” at the moment and that Plunkett may not be a long term solution, the replacements (while bowling well, overall) aren’t as confident with the bat – and that was a major contributor to the collapse.
Some of the assurance that the Kiwis have comes out of experience, not in “caps” but in chases paced and victories won. I do think it’s reasonable to feel this England team is going in the right direction. And I’d rather they take it on and get bowled out (as they did) than they cling on for the extra five overs and get at most around 30 runs more – and truthfully probably still lose…
LikeLike
came across this which may be pertinent here although it’s true for many walks of life in Britain in 2015
“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing”
we are still outside cricket aren’t we?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Third game in a row England have scored 300 plus. That is a big improvement from only a few months ago when the laptop score was 230. As I said yesterday, the more they get used to scoring these type of totals the easier it will become, and confidence will increase. Then they can get used to fine tuning. Toady was a time for the last 3 wickets to just bat out the 5 overs and get another 25-30. But this is a learning process, and they will get their.
Once a side gets a reputation for being able to score 300-330 on a regular basis you put pressure on the opposition. England did that today, but failed to take the catches. Get that part right with the batting and you are starting to become decent team. But it’s still early days, and I’m just enjoying the new look.
As for the argument below about bat vs ball, I think what people really like is close matches. Because England have been shit for so long seeing them get 400 in the first match was great to watch. But NZ only made 200 chasing. Do people really want to see ODI matches decided by 200 run margins on a regular basis? That used to be the margins only test matches were won by.
LikeLike
What did Moores ‘s spreadsheet have as the winning score? Jeez, what a moron.
LikeLike
I get the feeling there are a few “nervously conservative” journos and pundits out there! Already hearing about “building platforms”, nurdle a few ones and twos etc….JEEEZZZUSS!! That’s the same strategy they’ve been using for the last twenty odd years and look how that went!!
One thought I had after the first ODI was the fact that England are not onkly catching up, they could be setting the bar here!…..Keep it up lads…just hold onto those catches!!
LikeLike
Interesting analys… no, sorry, it’s only THE Analyst who is capable of analysing things (with his anus)… Interesting thoughts from The Elegance (that’s right isn’t it?) and commenters.
The little that I’ve been able to watch this series, I keep thinking back to that god-awful Sri Lanka series governed by Captain Mopey-socks, aka “the losing captain Alastair Cook”. Holy heck that was dreadful(ly funny) to watch. I am a bit disappointed in a way — this England team are playing excellent cricket in an adventurous and admirable fashion, but it lacks the element of high farce that I usually find so attractive.
Yes, it’s high risk, what these guys are doing, but against a team like NZ, to play conservatively and try to set 270 (yes I think that’s par today, according to the data) would be *much* higher risk, of the order of bungee jumping without a bungee.
The other thing I keep thinking is that the Ashes might even be competitive this time in England, depending on whether or not Bayliss can keep the poisonous effects of Broad & Andersen + Cook’s captaincy under some sort of control, and figure out a plan for the Aust lower order. (Everyone apart from Smith in the higher order will consistently get themselves out.) Cook will get a few runs, the effects of which his captaincy will negate, but Root, Stokes, Buttler will cause problems for Aus bowlers. Perhaps. It’s hard to say — Aus never looked for a moment like losing anything in WI, even at 6 for 120. England struggled continuously — although that was only because Graves gave the WI team talk, so that was a decisive difference which Australia didn’t have to deal with. But England may have dropped some ballast too, dumping poor Mr Moores, and leaking the possibility of Cook quitting soonish. That will already be a huge relief for the rest of the team, even if it will happen after the summer.
The previous Ashes white wash shouldn’t be taken as a bench mark. Teams collapse abysmally like that when they are atrociously led. It’s not an indicator of actual talent. And it seems like you guys have picked up a bit of talent too. Wood looks like the finished product in a way that Finn & Jordan don’t.
Sorry for talking about the Ashes in the middle of your ODI series against NZ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish I had thought of “The Elegance”.
LikeLike
From the WI v A Tests here’s how I see Australia shaping up for the Ashes:
Warner – not been in particularly good form since the SA tour but got two exceptionally good balls in both first innings and was out chasing ultra-quick runs in both second innings. His run of lowish scored doesn’t look connected to an technical fault and his record is better when the competition is fiercest so expect him to come good. Brilliant in the field.
Marsh – still something of an enigma, blowing hot and cold. Looked vulnerable to the in-swinger with his head tending to fall over towards the slips. Might drop out of the team for Rogers who missed the whole series with concussion sustained in the nets. Excellent fielder in the gully.
Smith – struggled against Bishoo in the First Test but in a class of his own in the Second. Slight risk batting him at No.3 in England.
Clarke – two rather frenetic innings made it difficult to gauge his form. Three superb catches in the First Test suggested his back is okay.
Voges – impressive debut century and was batting well in the Second Test when he got a good one from Taylor. Leg-side dependency for scoring (106 of his 130) indicates a line of attack. Not afraid to take his time building an innings.
Watson – never looked like making significant runs and also the only fielder I can recall to drop a catch. Clarke likes his bowling though and still turned to it on the rare occasions WI looked like they might break free. Two out of Rogers, Marsh and Watson to play in Cardiff.
Haddin – keeping as good as ever but decline with the bat may be permanent. Got an unplayable ball in the First Test but bowled through a huge gate in the Second by a pitched up delivery – England please note! Averages 15 in 11 Tests since the last Ashes.
Johnson – pitches didn’t suit his style of bowling but not at his best either. Not at his most rapid and couldn’t find much swing or seam. Pacing himself or a bit out of sorts? Didn’t threaten with the bat.
Starc – ten wickets at 16 and dropped his Test career bowling average from 35 to 32. Certainly can move the red ball as much as the white but didn’t quite show the rigorous accuracy he did in the WC. Concentrates on attacking the stumps with very little short stuff. Has the potential to be player of the forthcoming series if he gets it right and stays fit. No impact with the bat. Difficult to remember he is only 24.
Lyon – 8 wickets at 19 a decent return but didn’t run through WI as expected in First Test. Bowled better at LHBs (England have quite a few) but did wilt and lose accuracy when attacked. Batted obstinately.
Hazlewood – 12 wickets at 8.8 and ER of 1.86. Superb bowling in the ‘corridor of uncertainty’ of RHBs with consistent away swing. Useful batting as well although he is always battling a tendency to back away against quicker bowlers. Only issue is can he be as effective against LHBs? Difficult to see Australia can leave him out even for Ryan Harris.
Wally Edwards – man of the series for not giving WI inspirational team talks.
Generally, Australia look a class above in the field. Their bowling has an excellent balance and high wicket-taking potential from the three main seamers in pretty much any conditions. The batting has shown some brittleness (especially the openers and lower middle order) and they may need some contributions from the tail. They could cover one seam bowler getting injured but Warner, Smith or Lyon getting injured would weaken them considerably. They were poor in their warm-up match so let’s try not to read too much into those for once.
Prediction: 3-1 to Australia.
LikeLike
Steve Smith now top of the batting rankings:
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/
Also Lehmann in his post-match interview said he’s very keen on playing a batting all-rounder which suggests if Watson were dropped it would be for Mitch Marsh rather than Chris Rogers. While acknowledging he’d like more runs from Watson Lehmann also went out of his way to praise his bowling so they look likely to stand by Watson to me (I’d rate Marsh a better batsman than Watson currently but nowhere near as reliable a bowler – and of course he lacks experience on English wickets).
LikeLike
Perhaps what is needed are some tail enders who are prepared to change gears a bit at the end and strech theinnings out to the 50 overs mark.
LikeLike
One for the ‘too matey by half’ files:
LikeLike
It’s bad enough that the England captain and opening batsman would even agree to promote that piece of crap, but even funnier that the writer then re tweets pictures of it without any thought it might not look very good.
Dear Simon, thanks for all your support through my 2 years when I couldn’t score a run. Thanks for going on every media outlet you could find and telling everyone who would listen what a nice guy I am, and how there is no alternative to me as captain. Of course I would be happy to pose holding up your new book.
Yours, The England captain
And they wonder why we say they are too close to the people they should be holding to account.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As an aside, and from a hetero-male pov, how ugly is OurLeader? Lop-sided big jaws, permanent eye-liner, sinister eye-brows, bad haircut… ermm…ummm…ermm – any thoughts? 😉
LikeLike
How dare you sir!
I’ll have you know that…
“Leaders come in all shapes and sizes but being tall and handsome (one female TV reporter was seen swooning shortly after interviewing him when he first became captain), he certainly wins nature’s vote as an alpha male.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/10893055/England-captain-Alastair-Cook-may-be-on-trial-but-he-must-stick-to-his-ideals-at-Lords.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now you’re not being personal about Derek are you Arron?
LikeLike
From a hetero female pov, quite ugly, but to be fair he was better-looking when he was younger. His face has got much more boney in the last few years and now it’s all about the jaw and the teeth.
(A rapid survey of other females within reach has produced votes in favour of Morgan, Buttler, Finn and Anderson. Cook, nul points)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is that Ed Milliband holding a copy of the batsman’s bible❔
LikeLiked by 1 person
W.E.I.R.D.
LikeLike
Geoffrey did the most splendid forensic critique of it!…
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got to love how a 19 year spinner on debut takes 7-56 today of all days.
His name? M. Carter.
LikeLike
Nice. Is “Carter” the only living spinner in New cross. (or Notts?)
LikeLike
Presumably Samit Patel was considered Sheriff Fatman
LikeLike
Nice. Again.Six foot six and a hundred tons.
LikeLike
If his first name was Magnus it would be even better.
LikeLike
This is the promo stuff on Amazon selling the book…..
“When a leading Test player rang up Simon Hughes late one night to ask him for his advice on why it was that he kept on failing to convert good starts into centuries, Hughes (top score 53) was taken aback. But as the analyst on TV he had built a career on closely assessing players techniques and explaining to the nation what the finer points of what players are doing right or wrong. Now he had the chance to put that experience into practice…..”
Oh to know which “leading test player” rang Simon Hughes up to ask for advice on batting?
It couldn’t possibly be who I think it might be could it? A batsman who knows Hughes well enough to ring him, and had been failing to convert starts into centuries? Hmm, I wonder who that sounds like?
LikeLike
That’s bizarre. Hughes for all I know might be excellent in terms of game management, and excellent in terms of bowling. But I’ve read a fair bit of his stuff and he knows nothing at all about batting and talks absolute codswallop about it on frequent occasions. For example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/10901880/England-v-Sri-Lanka-Sam-Robson-gets-himself-caught-out-again-hook-line-and-sinker.html
It’s a combination of the bleeding obvious on the one hand, and a complete failure to understand why that happens with a batsman.
LikeLike
It continues…….
“As they spoke, Hughes began to think more deeply than ever before about what it was that singled out the truly great batsmen from the merely very good. This book is the fascinating result. Along the way, he recalls some of the highlights from his own experiences, whether it was trying to work out where to bowl to Viv Richards, or how to face up to Joel Garner when he was tearing in and trying to knock him over. Learning from some of the greatest players of all time, he builds up a composite of the perfect batsman, while at the same time providing plenty of useful tips on how to improve your own skills and some brilliant stories from the eternal conflict between batsman and bowler”
Funny how they try and sell it like a pot boiler?
One night Simon Hughes was working late in his study, he took a sip of his top of the range Waitrose brandy, and then a thought came to him. All those years he had bowled to Viv Richards had given him a unique insight into how to bat like Viv Richards. He quickly left the house under the cover of darkness and found his way to a nearby telephone box where he turned from Simon Hughes the commentator into super hero, ‘Mr batting coach.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shane Watson, believe it or not.
LikeLike
I can believe it. Watson’s batting career nosedived.
LikeLike
Quite. I do hope supporters and scribes can find a little patience in their hearts. Morgan and Farbrace are essaying the cricketing equivalent of Kubrik’s celebrated edit in 2001: these things take time.
LikeLike
It’s easier to be patient with them because they both give lucid and honest explanations of what they’re trying to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“honest” – that’s the key isn’t it? Not taking the audience for some dumb fucks, which is how we’ve been treated for last 2 years. Endearing quality, this honesty thing. Might even recommend it to a few others at ECB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Come dine with me with the Analyst and Alastair Cook as re-imagined in the 70s:
LikeLiked by 1 person
For those lucky enough to have missed it so far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOIy4tH1IRo
LikeLike
Flintoff’s recent admission was wryly amusing – that he wasn’t the first to go and commiserate with Brett Lee, Harmison had gone over to him before that. But as Flintoff said, “Steve was never very good at knowing where the cameras were.”
So Fred definitely didn’t light that particular fire…. hey, it was still a nice gesture though.
LikeLike
I know it isn’t “cool” at all, but I am rather fond of the original song because of its extraordinarily serendipitous release date (in the UK top ten the week before the Berlin Wall came down).
That, however, was a classless, joyless, disingenuous mess. What arrogance for the broadcaster to assume that anyone in England has even one single *home* Ashes memory they associate with Sky before 2009.
LikeLike
Totally agree with you about the original version of this song. Sky’s ruination of this is on a par with the John Lewis advert that had a cover of Please please let me get what i want
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or that Renault ad with a similarly insipid, twee cover of “That’s Entertainment”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t want to do a full fisk as Dmitri has had plenty to say about it on Twitter and might be intending to do a forthcoming piece on it.
Let’s just say at this stage I keep changing my mind which bit to get most annoyed about. The whole thing and, as you’ve rightly said, it’s sheer corporate joylessness? The pre-Sky tokenism? Okay they can’t name-check everyone but not one of Hobbs, Compton, Trueman, Underwood, Greig and Boycott? The omissions? KP’s 158 is only not there because it was difficult to get it to rhyme or scan – right? The commissions? “Yes chef!”…..
At the moment it is “Andy Flower’s Eng-er-land” that’s raising my blood pressure. Duncan Fletcher’s England? John Buchanan’s Australia? Can’t imagine it somehow…..
LikeLike
I think, in the simplest terms, it’s because they want to have their f-ing cake and eat it. A skewed emphasis on 2009, 2010/11 (especially) and 2013 because they covered them exclusively live, a thoroughly disingenuous use of old footage from the FTA era, and use of a song whose appeal lies almost entirely in our shared experience of history, so the post-2005 generation will associate Sky with earlier glory days.
It’s a horrible, cynical exercise with just enough sheen to attract those with fewer miles on the clock than we have. I bet you could accurately plot different reactions on a graph similar to ‘Political Compass’, with age on the x-axis and “inside cricket” status on the y. Needless to say I’d be well into the south-eastern quadrant.
LikeLike
Exactly Arron.
Lights going out and “kicking balls” takes something away from the original.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, we can only hope that The Spin decides to cover this later today. 1-0 to the Telegraph (again):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11675634/Documentary-raises-questions-on-crickets-future.html#disqus_thread
LikeLike
Stop obsessing…… get over him……. move on……
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3119754/Kevin-Pietersen-Chris-Gayle-knock-booze-party-style-together.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3123496/Kevin-Pietersen-desperate-help-England-reclaim-Ashes-says-eligible-selection.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3125242/Kevin-Pietersen-takes-Chris-Gayle-smash-drone-sky-big-hitting-batsman-comes-top.html
LikeLike
Weeell, to be fair, two of those pieces are publicising upcoming matches.
The other is KP guesting on The Chris Gayle Show.
So I guess that’s ‘the relentless KP PR machine’ in action, then, right?
LikeLike
Every year I go to the Rose Bowl, and every year I’m somehow surprised that the park and ride is completely inadequate for the number of people who go to the match, every year I miss the first 10 overs of the game in spite of living with 20 miles of the ground and leaving with over two hours to spare, and every year I vow not to repeat the mistake the next…
It’s a nice ground, it really is. legroom = adequate, view = adequate, pitch = generally excellent, even the catering was pretty good this year, with different options to the usual burger’n’chips fayre. but that park and ride boils my piss.
It could be worse, though. I could be one of a party of about 30 NZers who travelled 19000km to watch their team, only to be thrown out at the start of their side’s run chase. Sure, one or two might have been quite drunk, but not abusively so. It could have been handled much better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
About those new zealanders-was there any evidence of racial abuse? I’m asking because there was.a.post on reddit a couple of days ago stating a bunch of them got kicked out for racial abuse, which they denied.
LikeLike
hmm. I don’t want to say no, because they were thrown out for no other obvious reason. However I don’t want to say yes, because I didn’t hear anything at all along those lines. There was a tannoy announcement reminding fans to not be racist a little while later (because tannoy announcements are historically the best method of denouncing an upbringing of ignorance). It’s sad if that is the case, although even then it was perhaps a mis-understanding, if the Kiwi’s I’ve met have been anything to go by…they aren’t exactly a bunch of, say, Millwall fans*.
*everyone knows Millwall fans are the most evil creatures on the planet.
LikeLike
Your author is one. But you knew that.
LikeLiked by 1 person