Author: thelegglance

England v New Zealand: 1st ODI review

thelegglance48 Comments

In truth, not many of the forecasts or expectations for this opening match of the series included the possibility of England battering New Zealand completely, and once again, the potential for going completely over the top on the basis of a single result in the mainstream media is more than a distinct possibility.  Yet there is also nothing wrong with enjoying an unexpected success, particularly when it is done with such style.

A single match is no basis to proclaim the brightness of the future, we have seen plenty of false dawns before, yet as an expression of intent (providing it doesn’t prove to be an outlier), this one does rather startle and grab the attention.  A 210 run margin of victory is the kind of thing that happens to England, not the other way around.

No question that the stars of the show were Root, Buttler and Rashid.  All three batted beautifully at different points of the innings, showing aggressive intent, excellent shot selection and perhaps most importantly a complete lack of fear of getting out.  It’s something England supporters have cried out for for years, the complete antithesis to the safety first approach in a form of cricket that rewards those prepared to back their own ability.

And therein lies the problem.  Despite it being abundantly obvious that this was the way to go, England persisted for years with their conservative, insular approach of trying to get to around a par score that the data confirmed would give them a decent chance of victory.  It’s not a cynical view of how they did it, Graeme Swann confirmed that this was how it was done.  Above all else, this performance is an excoriating verdict of England in One Day Cricket for many years.  The whole World Cup debacle actually looks worse after today than it even did at the time, not because England succeeded today and failed then, but because they didn’t even try then.

Of course, it is better late than never, and if this is indeed the new England, then we will have a side who may or may not succeed, but who won’t die wondering – and that would be a significant step forward.  At 202-6 there is absolutely no chance that the old England would have carried on attacking, there would have been an aim of around 300 if possible and a view that it was then “competitive”.  The point here is that Buttler and Rashid could have perished in pursuit of their aim of a high target, and England would then likely have fallen well short of 300, but even then it is still exactly the right way to go.  It remains to be seen if it is seen that way when it goes wrong, as most assuredly it will at some point.  Mike Atherton – who could defend himself by saying it was a legitimate question – asked that very point, only to be swiftly put down by Adil Rashid in response, quite rightly.  There lies the test.  England will be bowled out from promising positions in some matches adopting this approach, and they must be granted the latitude for that when it happens.

It’s a single match, and a single win.  But making over 400 and the way in which they did so is a marker for a style of cricket that the rest of the cricketing world adopted some time ago.  New Zealand won’t change, it remains to be seen if England do. Let’s hope not.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand: Review

thelegglance206 Comments

Perhaps the one thing all will agree upon is that a series consisting of only two Tests has proved to be a terrible mistake.  These things are decided some years in advance of course, and New Zealand’s rise to become a team to reckon with on the field rather than just in words wasn’t known at the time of scheduling.  That is still no excuse whatever, and it shouldn’t happen again.  The trouble is, it is already going to happen again.  England are scheduled next to visit New Zealand in early 2018 for five ODIs, a T20 and…..two Tests.  It is probably too much to hope the two boards are in contact about changing that.

If ever a short series was crying out for a decider, this is it.  For all the observations on individuals and performances which will follow, the cricket throughout has been thrilling. New Zealand are certainly the ones who set the agenda given that this is how they play, but England did catch the bug at different times, and it does take two sides to ensure the cricket is of the nature we have seen.  That England couldn’t maintain that approach in the second Test shouldn’t be surprising in itself – that they tried to in the first is worthy of note given the style of the side over the last few years.

For this match there is no question than that New Zealand thoroughly and completely deserved their win.  Perhaps the most startling demonstration of their approach is shown by the fact that they only batted 163 overs in the match, against England’s 200 – yet winning by the huge margin of 199 runs.   Yet England scored at 3 an over across the match, which might not be scintillating, but isn’t tardy either, especially when the last day was taken up with trying to survive.  Given that so much time was lost to rain- equivalent to a full day –  and that New Zealand won in the final session of the last day, it can be said to have borne dividends to the ultimate extent.  Without such a high risk approach, and given a decent surface and inclement conditions, this match would have been a fairly tame draw.  Indeed the weather turned out to be kinder on the last day than they could have hoped for, and definitely better than the forecasts indicated – the anticipated rain taking out up to a session would have ensured a stalemate and an England series win.

There can therefore be little argument that New Zealand are the most exciting team in world cricket today, and it is not unimportant to note that they do so while playing the game in such an excellent spirit.  England too joined that particular party, which was good to see, because their own behaviour has fallen short on a number of occasions in recent times.

Yet none of this was particularly unknown before the series.  Their opening bowling attack is extremely potent, and Trent Boult lived up to his reputation by proving frequently lethal and taking thirteen wickets in the two games.  If anything, Southee proved to be a little disappointing. The sense of foreboding about this England side facing up to the assorted Mitches later in the summer is not misplaced.  Most of the team did contribute in the series however, and that they won this Test so comfortably with no contributions from a player as good as Kane Williamson and not too much in either Test from Ross Taylor shows that there is depth in New Zealand cricket, and that hasn’t been said too often over the years.

And what of England? The problem so often is that the media do them no favours.  The win in the first Test was something of a steal; for the first three days England were very much on the back foot, it took a fabulous innings from Cook and an extraordinary one from Stokes to turn that around.  This is of course good in itself and was undeniably thrilling, but it didn’t warrant the glowing response from the usual sections of the press for the simple reason that relying on such heroics to win a match is no basis for assuming the health of the side to be so perfect.  England do have some promising young players, and they do have some reasons for optimism.  The trouble is that the coverage of English cricket has been so appallingly mendacious that it was both predictable and pathetic when the usual suspects piled in with glee as though a single win against the odds had answered every objection or criticism ever made.  We might be used to the press being excessive, but it is unusual compared to most sports when they make excuses for every failing and then trumpet a single success.  The England football team certainly don’t get such favourable treatment and nor should they.

An indication of this has been that after today’s defeat, the “five wins from the last eight Tests” line has been trotted out – of course it was “five from seven” until today – which is trying to shut down debate and criticism by clinging to raw figures of their choosing.  Why pick eight?  Why not twelve, so we can take into account the defeat to Sri Lanka and the Lords loss to India?  Why not seventeen so we can include the Ashes shambles?  Or go the other way and say “two wins and two defeats in the last five” which isn’t so impressive, especially when three of those matches were against the eighth ranked side in the world.  It doesn’t mean that saying “nine defeats in the last seventeen Tests” is a more accurate figure, but it does mean it’s an equally valid one.  To try and select a specific one of those and repeat it at every juncture (whichever one it is) is trying to push a particular point of view.

England do have some grounds for optimism – Cook’s return to form with the bat is essential to the success of the side, and it’s not just that he’s scoring runs it’s how he is scoring those runs that counts.  Never mind how, count how many is true in the overall sense, but the how in terms of a specific player is important for indicating how many.  Cook is batting very, very well.  Yet again here it should not and must not be used to cover the issues with his captaincy.  Yesterday morning’s bowling to the New Zealand tail was nothing less than a complete meltdown, not for the first time.  Where the balance of blame lies for that is a matter of some discussion – Cook himself talked about it being very definitely a plan, which is extraordinary if so, given that time and again it results in England being flayed around the park.  Others suggested with varying degrees of strength that it definitely wasn’t the plan, in which case the captain failing to overrule the bowlers is quite simply weak.  Whichever it might be, it doesn’t look very impressive.

One side issue about his batting did come up during the Test, that he’d engaged Gary Palmer for some private coaching sessions.  Good.  He was seeking solutions and finding someone who could help him without direction from on high.  There is nothing to criticise him for about this, just as there is nothing to criticise other players who use a person they trust.  Players must look after their own game, and that doesn’t mean being confined to official structures; that would be just about the worst thing they could do.  One or two in the press ought to have known better when using it as a stick to beat a particular player with.

Cook did OK as captain in the first Test.  And that’s rather the point, he did OK.  It shouldn’t have been treated with such praise for doing the tactical basics passably well.  Yet there should be no problem in agreeing entirely that he was fine in that match, because it’s acknowledging how it is, just as it’s fine to acknowledge that he is batting superbly well.  The problem arises in the complete ignoring of situations like yesterday morning.  The Black Caps scored 116 in 16 overs in that morning session.  An already strong but not impregnable lead turned into a position of total supremacy in the space of an hour.  It is of course entirely possible that even had Cook and the team got it absolutely spot on, something similar could have happened (in any case, 350 or so would have likely been well beyond them), but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that in that short period England well and truly threw away any remaining chance they had.  It doesn’t help anyone to skate over things like this, a year ago at the same ground England more obviously disintegrated, but it is merely a matter of degree; the same occurred on the fourth morning this time too, and when put under identical pressure.

Joe Root’s comments that England would go all guns blazing for the total caused some wry amusement given five of the first six overs of the day were maidens, yet in reality they didn’t have a great deal of choice.  Sometimes the opposition just bowl well.  Root probably absolutely believed it at the time he said it, circumstances just changed rather quickly.  In any event, England never had the option.

Other positives (which we must take of course) for England included Mark Wood, Adam Lyth and Jos Buttler.  Lyth and Wood being two games into their nascent Test careers look promising, it’s not fair on either of them to push it further than that.  But they should certainly be in the Ashes side given their performances.

Buttler has quietly gone about his business since coming into the team, and without ever going on to make a really big score has still impressed.  Five half centuries in twelve innings is an excellent return, as is an average of 52.66.  It doesn’t mean for a moment he will or can maintain that, but he can be quietly satisfied thus far.  His keeping standing back has been good – he’s not the first to struggle at Lords – and his keeping standing up has been mostly adequate with a couple of technical flaws to address.  There’s work to do there, but it’s a decent beginning.

We now move into the one day series, and the side announced today is actually quite exciting.  There will be another time to discuss that, but in terms of how the Test side will look in July when the Ashes begins, the likelihood is that barring injuries it won’t be too different.  Bell and Ballance have some work to do, as both need runs, but dropping Bell would be astonishing given his overall record, and would no doubt cause uproar given he is in the same kind of slump that Cook was fully supported throughout. He doesn’t seem terribly happy at present and he deserves precisely the same faith.

Ballance appears to be going through sophomore difficulties.  But it should be remembered that focusing on his footwork during his current problems only has value as criticism if the same were levelled when he was batting so well.  He looks horribly out of nick, not technically inadequate.

Moeen too is under scrutiny, yet his bowling record to date is perfectly adequate by the standards of any spinner England have had since Underwood.  England need to decide what to do here, he’s only going to improve if he is given time to do so.

There is plenty of time for these matters to sort themselves out.  For now it is a matter of saluting a fine team, who played with verve, skill and daring.  A drawn series is the very least they deserved, because in truth barring a couple of days at the end of the first Test, they outplayed England.  And above all else, they were a privilege to watch. If only we had that third and deciding Test to look forward to next week.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand, 2nd Test: Day Four report/Day Five preview

thelegglance164 Comments

Given that play was curtailed with only 29 overs possible on day four, England now have an excellent chance of getting away with a draw.  98 overs may be scheduled for the final day, but the forecast is some way less than perfect for tomorrow as well.  A 1-0 series win is now within their grasp, as it appears that at best a third of the day may be at risk.

If so, England will move up to third in the ICC rankings, and New Zealand will drop to seventh, a rather hard outcome for the Black Caps who have lit up the early summer with their exciting style of cricket.

For make no mistake, England have been on the wrong end of something of a hammering in this match.  The scoring rates have been little short of astonishing from New Zealand – they have the highest scoring rate of any Test team in history who have scored more than 800 runs in a match, while in the second innings they set a different, if slightly esoteric record by becoming the first side in which 8 batsmen hit sixes.

Of course, while their approach deserves immense credit – and remember they were put into bat in difficult conditions on day one – it doesn’t excuse the abysmal bowling performance from England this morning in particular.  Mike Selvey commented that:

Aside from the usual “knowing for a fact” stuff, it begs the question what on earth the captain is up to in allowing it to continue.  Any captain should be telling the bowler in no uncertain terms that it is not acceptable to bowl in that manner, and telling him to do what he is told.  If he won’t do that, then he’s off.  It really is as simple as that.  If Broad instead continues to do his own thing, and if Cook allows him to, then that is truly appalling captaincy, and weak beyond measure.  And here’s the rub – if Selvey is wrong and that it was the policy, then that’s dreadful too, given that it doesn’t work, hasn’t worked and that England have had this problem of being spanked to all parts of the ground by the tail on so many occasions.  It really is one or the other here.

England’s bowling to the tail has been utterly shambolic for some years now, and they simply don’t learn.  No matter how many times it’s pointed out that barely any balls are hitting the stumps and they consistently bowl short, they still do it.  Which would be ok if it actually succeeded, but it doesn’t.  It is pure insanity of the “repeating the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result” kind.

When England lost the series to Sri Lanka this time last year, it was explained away as being a matter of just a couple of balls that could have gone the other way, and that was the difference between winning and losing.  I don’t exactly expect it to be treated in those terms if England get away with a draw in this one – it will be 1-0 and well done England, ignoring entirely that they have been second best for much of the series, and will have escaped purely and simply due to bad weather.

England don’t deserve to win this series, and New Zealand certainly don’t deserve to lose it.  And we don’t deserve to be fobbed off with a two Test series in the first place.   Arron made the point in the comments that England will have played ODI series against Australia in seven out of eleven summers between 2009 and 2019, yet New Zealand get these two Tests.  England could have made space for something more substantial, they chose not to.  Any kind of defence that the schedule didn’t allow for more is nothing but excuses.  Still, we’re used to that.

England could of course decide that in the spirit of the series they will have a crack at the world record target…..no, me neither.  And so many England supporters will be secretly hoping New Zealand bowl England out, and for once it doesn’t have to have anything to do with the ECB, the mainstream media or anything else.  It’s just a matter of fairness and what is deserved.  No one who loves cricket could object to that, surely?

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand 2nd Test: Day 3 preview

thelegglance88 Comments

Well, well.  What a difference an hour makes.  England were cruising along and making all the talk that New Zealand’s total was a pretty decent one look silly.  But this being England, they’re never so vulnerable as when they look to be in a good position.  From 177-0 to 253-5 is not a collapse exactly, but it is a reversion from a position of strength to the game being very much in the balance.

Doubtless the main headlines will be about Cook becoming the leading run scorer for England in Tests, and while the unquestioning adoration of England’s skipper from so many media sources has been enough to infuriate many over the last two years, today is certainly a time where he deserves all the plaudits coming his way.  And there’s an irony in that – Cook perhaps won’t receive the credit he deserves from some quarters precisely because of an inability for some to ever offer up a word of criticism when it’s warranted.  And the reality is that it is unfair, this is a huge feat for him.

Cook the batsman is and always has been a separate issue to Cook the captain.  His poor form over a lengthy period tended to cause debate about whether he would ever again be the batsman he had been, not a dismissal of his abilities over his career.  But his last two innings have probably removed that doubt for most; he looks very much back to his best.

And to that end, to be approaching 9,000 Test runs at the age of 30 is an outstanding achievement, and it was pleasing to see Cook receive the recognition of that from the crowd – though not at all surprising; if you aren’t going to stand and applaud a player becoming his country’s leading run scorer when will you?  Whatever anyone might think of him as captain, he deserved that for a career that has been excellent and is some way from being over.  Cook is now in 13th place in the all time run scorers list, and with all above bar Chanderpaul (just) and Sangakkara (not too far off) retired, he’ll be catching and passing many of them.  There was an interesting comment on Sky when he achieved the record that it had stood for 20 years, and that Cook’s record would stand for a lot longer.  I’m not so sure about that.  If Joe Root ends up as good a player as he currently looks, then he might have something to say about it over the next decade.

Adam Lyth of course was the star of this particular day, his maiden century on his home ground repaying the faith of his local supporters.  He should now have the Ashes series to try and cement his place as opener on the back of it.

Earlier, England had demonstrated a familiar cluelessness in terms of how to deal with the tail, as Craig, Henry and Boult happily lashed them to all parts, while England refused to attack the stumps in favour of banging the ball in.  Is this actually a plan, or do the bowlers do their own thing?  It’s not worked for some time now, yet they still do it.  Of course, any team can suffer from the lower order batsmen having a bit of a slog, the point is that it happens to England repeatedly.  Nasser Hussain, astute as ever, made the point that they should look to how Broad is got out for the template – yes a short ball or two to ruffle them up, but then bowling straight and full.

Broad himself got one of the more peculiar Michelles* of his career, going at 6.34 runs an over.  You’d probably take that overall, but when batsmen are derided for recklessness so often, perhaps the same thing could be levelled at Broad on this occasion.

The late flurry of wickets means that England will have to bat exceptionally well against the still new ball in the morning in order to achieve parity.  The weather forecast has improved for the next few days, but it looks likely to be cloudy and good conditions for bowling.  That doesn’t mean New Zealand can feel confident, the third innings so often falls away dramatically, especially under the pressure of trying to set a target, but their approach on day one appears to have been somewhat vindicated by the present match situation.  Weather permitting though, a result looks very likely.

The old cliche about the next session being critical does apply.  If England don’t bat at least passably well they will find themselves in considerable trouble.  It’s been a hugely entertaining series so far, thank goodness that if New Zealand win there’ll be a decider.  Oh hang on…

*Does this really need explaining?

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand 2nd Test: Day Two

thelegglance35 Comments

Those who braved the rain enjoyed a fairly remarkable day’s play on the first day of this second and sadly final Test of the “series”.

With poor weather both this morning, and likely over the next few days, it seems that New Zealand decided that to try and force the win they need to square the series, and in so doing, have scored at 4.6 runs an over across the day.  In so doing, and making just shy of 300 in the 65 overs possible, they have well and truly got themselves in the game.  It might not be an imposing score, but at first sight it doesn’t look a bad one.  There was certainly movement available, both off the pitch and in the air, particularly when there was cloud cover.

Which makes it rather hard to come to a firm conclusion about where the game sits.  It’s certainly moved along quickly, and if there is further time lost, as seems probable, the shot making approach could have bought them anything up to half a day.  Of course, if England in reply rack up a big total, then New Zealand will find themselves in trouble, but as a gamble in order to try and force a victory from the off, it’s hugely impressive and fairly brave.

Latham might have been the anchor around which the others played their shots, but he was hardly becalmed either.  Ronchi on debut played a scintillating knock and was on track for the fastest debut century in Test history.  Doubtless he will receive criticism for getting out the way he did – caught on the boundary off a bouncer when three men were out – but that was how he played his whole innings.  Just as so often, focusing on the dismissal not the runs is one of those things that is somewhat peculiar.  88 off 175 balls with a prod to first slip would certainly have only attracted praise.

At the start of the day Anderson wasted little time in getting the 400th Test wicket of his career, and swiftly added scalp number 401.  With New Zealand 2-2, then end result represents something of a recovery, because in the early stages he looked as lethal as he so often does when the ball is swinging.  He’s been a wonderful bowler for England over the years, and so many of the debates about his “greatness” or otherwise seem spurious.  Not many bowlers reach 400 wickets, because both consistency and longevity are required.  It’s quite an achievement, and he’s an exceptionally skilled bowler.  Assuming he remains injury free, he could well reach 500 and go beyond that.  Anderson is the best England seam bowler in a generation, and in itself that’s deserving of note; I sometimes think Anderson suffers from the Tim Henman Critic Syndrome, whereby Henman was slated because he only got to number 4 in the world and only got to the semi-finals a few times at Wimbledon.

And what of England’s approach in the morning?  The New Zealand tail is hardly the strongest, so it seems probable there will be a few wild slashes and the innings will be closed in short order. Will England adopt the same attacking approach as in the first Test, or will the fact that they are 1-0 up, poor weather is around and time will be lost from the game lead to a more cautious approach?  It might be instructive to see whether the first Test was a glorious fluke of circumstance or if England do intend to try and play this way.

The forecast tomorrow is quite good, and overhead conditions do make a huge difference.  It should be fascinating.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand, 1st Test: Review

thelegglance94 Comments

Rejoice!  All is well and those doubting over the last two years have been firmly put in their place.  You were told and you didn’t listen, so now you get roundly abused for your negative attitude, and deservedly so.  Right?

Make no mistake, this was a fine win, in a genuinely wonderful Test match.  England produced a wonderful display on the last two days in particular, so surely even the most critical England fan should be pleased with that?  Well yes, actually, they should.  There is a lot to like about the players coming through in this England side and if this is how England are going to play, then there may yet be a chance of recovering some of the ground that the ECB have so needlessly thrown away.  Suggesting that anyone being critical should shut up now misses the point of the issues raised, because many of them haven’t been so much as acknowledged, let alone addressed.  But if it is a first step, then that would be something for everyone to be pleased about.

The captain undoubtedly had a fine game here.  His second innings century was an excellent knock, not just in terms of scoring the runs he did, but in the manner he did so.  Somewhat belatedly, Sky decided to focus on his technique, rather curious in some ways to do so after he’s put it right having ignored it mostly when it was wrong.  He was indeed much more upright, with his head over the ball and aligned well with his front foot.  As a result both his judgement outside off stump was much improved, and he was playing much straighter to the ball aimed at the stumps – his punching of the ball through midwicket and mid on were evidence of that, where previously he had been across the ball due to his balance taking his weight outside off stump.  Cook is never going to be a pretty player, but that’s irrelevant, as others can do that job.  His concentration is indeed one of his prime assets, but in order to make the most of that, he has to stay in.  The point about bowlers having found him out by pitching the ball up at him was always overplayed, because no side can maintain that degree of discipline endlessly if a player gets in – if the game was that easy it would have been worked out a century ago.  Eventually they will bowl balls for him to cash in on.

A Cook in form does change the proposition as far as England are concerned.  Australia’s bowlers wouldn’t have been concerned watching his hundred in the West Indies.  They will be a little more concerned watching his hundred at Lords.

As captain Cook also did little wrong.  England being bowled out this morning was probably the best thing that could have happened, removing the possibility of batting on too long.  But Cook rotated his bowlers well, and tried different things.  He came in for a fair degree of stick in commentary for having a third man in place when New Zealand were 2-2, but Cook is always going to be somewhat stifled by his existing plans and reluctant to change.  He is never going to be a McCullum or Clarke, and given who he is, today he did well.

So no more criticism of him then surely?  Not quite.  That he did well today as captain doesn’t undo the last two years.  But equally there should be no refusal to offer up credit where it is due.   The likely appointment of Trevor Bayliss will place the onus on Cook to run the side on the field, as Bayliss has the reputation for wanting to operate behind the scenes rather than dictating tactics.  That is as it should be, and maybe Cook will flower late as captain.  Yet he should not be given a free pass on the basis of a single Test, and crowing because of it is unseemly.  Credit where it is due and criticism where that is due is entirely reasonable.  This time, it’s credit.

Ben Stokes will of course receive all the plaudits and rightly so.  His second innings century will live long in the memory.  His style is simple and uncomplicated, and although that is often damnation with faint praise, it really shouldn’t be.  He plays straight, has few quirks, and of course that wonderful power.  English cricket probably does need a hero; given the concerns about cricket becoming a niche sport, it’s essential someone grabs the attention of the public.  If only more had the chance to see him.

Despite his second innings heroics, it was his first innings 92 that was perhaps the more important.  Coming in at 30-4 the game was more or less over right there had he gone cheaply.  Although New Zealand surpassed England’s total comfortably, Stokes, Buttler and Ali ensured England were in the game.  From where they were, that was more than could have been expected.

In keeping with being the golden boy, he of course had a say with the ball.  There is something about these kinds of players that they do this sort of thing.  He has shown that he has talent, and in this match he was perhaps the difference.  A word of warning though, Stokes is combative, fiery and awkward.  Recent history suggests England struggle to manage such free spirits, while there is every chance he will be castigated for throwing his wicket away when it goes wrong in similar circumstances.  If we want the glory of it coming off, we have to accept that the price of that is that sometimes he will fail, and it won’t look pretty.  It’s probably too much to hope that he will be granted latitude over that – no one else ever has been.  And that’s frustrating, because just letting him go is probably how England will get the most out of him.  Some players need that freedom, something that so many forgot when slating He Who Must Not Be Mentioned.

Moeen Ali is another who will look back on the match with pleasure.  4-129 on a surface that was friendlier to seam and (especially) swing was a decent return, and when added to over a hundred runs from the bat from number eight, his has fulfilled two roles in the side.  He has done little wrong in his career thus far.

Broad too bowled well overall.  It shouldn’t be forgotten that not for the first time he and Anderson bowled too short in the first innings, though they did correct it.  It remains absolutely mystifying that this happens so often, when they are so much more successful when they pitch it up.  Anderson himself had a relatively quiet Test, but ironically this is no bad thing.  England were looking far too reliant on him for this summer.  For others to do the legwork for once was overdue.

Mark Wood had a wonderful debut.  He bowled with pace, skill, clearly thinks about his bowling judging by how willing he was to use the crease to vary his point of attack, and perhaps above all looked like he was having the time of his life.  When he scored his first Test run he broke into a beaming smile, and on several occasions in the field he betrayed a mischievous sense of humour.  England for the last few years have appeared the most joyless, miserable, bad tempered team in world cricket.  The simple matter of a player plainly having the time of his life was utterly wonderful to see.   Don’t change him.

From a cricketing point of view, a single Test is hardly a sufficient sample size to form a judgement on him, but his presence did make the England attack look properly balanced for the first time since the 2010/11 Ashes.  The additional pace he brought was slightly reminiscent of seeing Simon Jones a decade ago.  Again, there’s no need to pile the pressure on him, but there’s enough there to suggest he might do well in future.

The other debutant Adam Lyth did less well of course.  It really should be written off as irrelevant.  It’s a single game, and he has played little in the last month.  England set him back by not selecting him in the Caribbean.  There’s little more to be said about him except to wish him luck at Headingley.

Ian Bell had a poor game all round.  He could do with a few runs soon, because England can’t keep losing early wickets and expect to get out of the hole.  He did get a couple of very fine deliveries, so for this game it’s a matter of shrugging the shoulders and saying it happens.  He could still do with getting some before too long.

For New Zealand they will be scratching their heads and wondering quite how they lost the game.  They had easily the best of the first three days, and showed that they are an excellent side.  For England to beat them there had to be some quite exceptional performances – they will be thinking that lightning is unlikely to strike twice.

Boult took nine wickets in the match, Williamson scored a fine century, Matt Henry had an excellent debut, BJ Watling showed why even if some of the commentators hadn’t paid attention, that he is a player worthy of considerable respect.

The worst thing anyone could do after this game would be to loudly trumpet that everything is now fine and dandy.  There is some promise in the players coming through in the England side, but England went one up in the Caribbean too and drew the series.  New Zealand are more than capable of turning it around, and England are more than capable of having a stinker.  Indeed, that they won by playing out of their skin on the last two days doesn’t alter the truth that for the first three they were outbatted, outbowled and outfielded.

None of this is intended to be churlish.  It was a thrilling fightback, one that reminded all those who needed the reminder that Test cricket is the apogee of the game.  And that does mean enjoying it thoroughly, so to that extent the praise that will be coming England’s way is fine.  It remains one match.  If they do it repeatedly, that is entirely different, and maybe it could be an England side to become engaged with.  It’s just a question of perspective.

England did well.  That’s good.  A good start.  Pity about the board of course, but for the team, yes a good start.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand 1st Test: Day Four

thelegglance122 Comments

England had a fairly decent day today, but New Zealand remain very much on top in the match.  Some of the deficit has been cleared, and both Cook and Bell batted pretty well to recover from yet another poor start.  Lyth will have been disappointed with the shot he played to get out, but let’s hope he’s not under any kind of pressure just yet – he has barely played any cricket in the run up to this series – precisely the scenario pointed out when they chose not to give him a debut in the West Indies.

Gary Ballance again looked out of sorts, but it was a very good ball that got him out.  Alex Hales on Twitter was quick to point out that a player doesn’t average 56 in first class cricket without being able to play the moving ball.  He’s a young player making his way in the game.  A bit of patience wouldn’t go amiss – his start in Test cricket has been a good one.

Cook himself looked technically much better, and given the situation that was a very valuable innings.  But the work has barely started given the position England find themselves in.

Kane Williamson was the glue holding the Black Caps’ innings together, but he clearly found the going much tougher today.  The overhead conditions were cloudy bordering on murky, which is why the eventual lead of 134 will likely prove decisive assuming it remains the same tomorrow.  Indeed, given that, and that New Zealand scored 220-8 today, the size of England’s task is a major one.

BJ Watling was the other major run scorer, demonstrating his worth yet again.  He seems to go largely under the radar for the commentators, but given a Test average of just shy of 40, it’s rather peculiar that he does so.  He’s a proper batsman.

England certainly bowled better today, but given the conditions they ought to be somewhat disappointed.  Some of it was down to happenstance, balls flying just out of reach on a number of occasions; some of it was self-inflicted, catches being dropped and some of it was down to once again bowling too short.  It’s truly extraordinary to see bowlers with the records the opening pair have go through this on so many occasions before belatedly correcting it.  New Zealand consistently are bowling fuller than England are.

Mark Wood took three wickets, none of which were exactly conventional.  He won’t greatly care at the moment – his relief at his first Test wicket was evident.  Yet he showed some serious signs of promise, his pace was good being consistently around the 90mph mark, he used the crease well to vary his line of attack, and got some late swing.  It’s his first game, and basing judgement on that would be foolish in the extreme, but there appears to be something to work with.  Add to that a post-play interview that was delightful in demonstrating the clear joy he has from playing and he’s proving an engaging character.  And then there’s the imaginary horse…

Ben Stokes at one stage appeared as if he was going to combust.  He didn’t bowl badly, and was let down by his fielders, yet he is in the position of bowling too many bad balls but not taking the wickets, hence a fairly poor economy rate.  Again, he is still in the infancy of his career, but perhaps the worst thing would be for him to focus on the economy most of all.  Bowling dry should be a weapon in the armoury, not the whole arsenal.  He’ll have more productive days if he bowls like this.

And then we come to Moeen Ali.  Ignored for much of the first day and again today, he popped up when finally called upon with two wickets in three balls.  He’s doing little wrong at the moment, scoring runs and taking wickets.  Curiously, although he’s a batsman who bowls primarily, it is his bowling that will determine his England career.  With the exception of the tour of the West Indies, when he was coming back from injury, thus far he’s doing all that can be asked of him.

Jos Buttler’s two catches deserve a mention.  Diving catches always look spectacular, but the first one in particular was special, because it is to his wrong side.  Lords does seem to cause wicketkeepers no end of problems, and that will have pleased him, deservedly so.

So another terrific day of Test cricket.  Yet whilst England will be pleased with their day, they are two wickets down and quite some way from drawing level.  With two days to go, England would have to bat the whole of tomorrow and another session to make the game safe, and that seems like a very big ask.  Of course, they will have hopes of winning the game, and to that end a target of 200 would seem to be the absolute minimum.  To do that and score a further 260 runs is asking a lot.  Getting out of this will be tough, and New Zealand have to date been comfortably the better side.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand – 1st Test, Day Two

thelegglance189 Comments

All in all a pretty good day for England.

The start was calamitous, though having been put into bat you would expect conditions to be challenging.  Lyth on debut simply got a good ball – it’s the peril of being an opening batsman.  Ballance too got quite a good one, though he looked more than slightly out of sorts during his short innings.  Bell was bowled by a ball that wasn’t far off unplayable.  In essence, three of the first four wickets to fall were down to good bowling to greater or lesser degrees.

And then there’s Alastair Cook.  Perhaps he doesn’t deserve separate treatment as such today, but the problem is that so many in the media are insistent that all is well and that he’s batting beautifully.  He really isn’t.  Today he was slicing at the ball – the bat came down from the direction of the slip region on a number of occasions, with drives flying in the air just out of the reach of fielders.  Even a rare straight drive was an example of cutting across the ball.  OK, conditions this morning were quite difficult, but if the media would accept that he has flaws he is trying to work through, it would be less necessary to continually point out that his technique is a problem.  The dismissal itself can be considered “one of those things”, and again excuses have been made, such as him being unlucky.  Let’s get this clear here, there is absolutely nothing wrong when the team is under the pump for a player to try and jump on a scoring opportunity.  It’s a moderate degree of risk yes, but the alternative is to be terrified into blocking – something England have done far too often in recent years.

Therefore, even given the situation, there’s nothing at all wrong with taking the shot on, he simply didn’t execute it terribly well and lost his wicket.  It happens.  It always has happened, and it always will happen; players try and score runs, and sometimes get it wrong.  All entirely normal, which is why the cries of irresponsibility when other players get out playing shots is so idiotic.  It’s no different in degree of irresponsibility whoever it is when they are out attacking, so either accept that or don’t – but don’t be selective about making the excuses when it goes wrong.

Subsequently of course, we saw what happens when it comes off.  Root and especially Stokes counterattacked in thrilling style – and that’s rather the point.  In doing so, they took a risk.  A calculated one, certainly, because it was anything but reckless, but had either been dismissed, the cries of anger would doubtless have been long and loud from those wishing to be wise after the event.  It was exactly the right thing to do, and they did it brilliantly, turning the day around and taking England to a good position.  Sometimes it will go wrong, but it’s still the right thing to do even then – the alternative we have already seen far too often.

After Root and Stokes came the Buttler and Mooen show.  Given all the things so wrong with England cricket at the moment, it’s nice to be able to point to an area where a degree of hope is warranted.  The middle order is exciting and with bags of potential.  Buttler showed he could bat more than one way and turned a recovery into a position of some degree of strength.  Moeen is a hell of a batsman to have coming in at number eight, and if he can be worth his place as the main spinner, then suddenly there is something to build on.

Moeen is simply not going to be a replacement for Graeme Swann, it’s not reasonable to expect that of him.  But it needs to be borne in mind that for the previous 35+ years going back to Underwood, a spinner who averaged below 40 for England was regarded as a success.  England must not make the same mistake that Australia did in trying to replace Warne and throwing bowlers out when they couldn’t do it.  Swann wasn’t in that class, but England do not produce many great spinners.  Debating whether Adil Rashid is a better choice is perfectly reasonable, because exactly the same degree of understanding would need to be given to him.  There is a need to be realistic here – and assuming either one of them does well enough, then the potential of a number eight who can score runs like Moeen can is extremely attractive.  And he’s great to watch too.

New Zealand’s bowlers looked tired towards the end of the day, and given that for a few of them they have come back from the IPL, perhaps it’s not surprising.  It certainly hasn’t been a disastrous day for them, this looks a good batting pitch, albeit that conditions have been quite conducive to swing.   While England have in the end had quite a good day, it’s somewhat alarming that Stuart Broad in his current batting malaise is now in at nine.  The innings could be wrapped up quite quickly.

It’s all set up for an intriguing day’s play tomorrow, with no team at this stage entirely comfortable with where they are, but not entirely unhappy either.  Which means it’s been a good day of Test cricket, and a reminder why it is that no matter how much the ECB try and wreck it, sometimes the cricket has its own way and tells a wonderful story.

As ever, comments below as the play unfolds, or if you want to take me to task!

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand: 1st Test preview

thelegglance91 Comments

And so after all the talking, double dealing and flat out fibbing, we come to the first Test of the summer and the beginning of the international season.

When the schedule was put together some years ago, New Zealand must have seemed the ideal opponents to provide a warm up for the main event of the summer.  A side with a bit of talent, but no real challenge to England, allowing players to ease back into Test cricket, find a bit of form and then move on to a real challenge.  It hasn’t worked out that way.

New Zealand are riding a crest of a wave.  A little over two years ago they appeared in meltdown, a new coach had come in – one without any kind of cricketing background in terms of playing incidentally – sacked the captain and the ructions in New Zealand cricket were deep and ongoing.  The best batsman was sufficiently hurt and humiliated as to drop out of the side, and the criticism was long and extensive, while the team were humiliated in South Africa.  Yet there was talent in the side, and the installation of Brendon McCullum as captain, however clumsily done, did seem at least to show some indications of forward thinking.  Ross Taylor returned, with all sides admitting that a lot of work needed to be done to heal the wounds.  That this was largely achieved is a credit to everyone involved, and the irony of the difference in terms of how New Zealand have addressed such matters and certain other sides.  New Zealand Cricket even had the gall to er, well admit they hadn’t handled things well.

Since the low point of being 45 all out, the team has gone from strength to strength. They had much the better of a 0-0 draw against an England team showing the first signs of the terrified negativity that’s become all too familiar, and although they were comfortably beaten in the return fixture in 2013, that was the last series in which they’ve been defeated.  A home win against India was impressive given where they’d come from, while an away win in the West Indies was their first overseas series victory against a top eight side in over a decade.

Perhaps most impressive of all was drawing with Pakistan in the UAE, by no stretch of the imagination an easy place to get a result.  Reaching the World Cup final in the 50 over format showcased an attacking, vibrant team unafraid to take risks.  They take it into the Test arena too – McCullum might set the tone with his batting, but he is hardly alone.

Not all of the Black Caps batting order is in prime form, and the late arrival of some of the team from the IPL is less than ideal, but they do bat deep and they are dangerous.  Martin Guptill for one  has a modest Test record, but is pushing hard for inclusion on the back of good form in England this year.  Kane Williamson and Ross Taylor are quality players, while Hamish Rutherford has flattered to deceive in his career to date, yet is clearly talented.  Yet perhaps the key player may turn out to be the combative wicketkeeper BJ Watling, the antithesis of the flaky player.

It is the bowling where England will be in real danger.  Test series in May often prove far too much for visiting sides to handle – precisely why the defeat to Sri Lanka last year was so abject, no matter how some try to pretend it never happened – yet in Trent Boult and Tim Southee the suspicion is that New Zealand have a significant advantage in the new ball stakes.

England have a fairly settled side, which is somewhat surprising given the shenanigans of the last month.  Lyth will almost certainly make his debut at the top of the order, and given that the pitch appears the day before to be exceptionally green, it will be challenging conditions in which to make a debut.  Despite claims that Cook is somehow in exceptional form on the basis of a century against modest opposition who were also missing their spearhead, the combination of a potent opening attack, cloudy overhead conditions and a damp track will ensure that he is under pressure from the off – not even taking into account his reported actions concerning the composition of the side.

The middle order is one area of solidity in the England team.  Ballance, Root and Bell really ought to be a good combination.  Bell himself has struggled somewhat since his aestas mirabilis in 2013, despite not looking out of touch.  He needs runs.

The bowling looks to be extremely reliant on Anderson.  Conditions should suit him down to the ground; the fear in his case is of being overbowled or getting injured.  Without Anderson, England really would be in the mire.  Broad did look to be returning to some kind of form in the Caribbean – with the ball anyway – and perhaps what he needs more than anything else is overs under his belt.  Even so, his pace was patchy at best, and surely he won’t be looking to bang the ball in to the deck in such conditions.

The support seamers are a problem.  Although it is a Good Thing to be patient with young players, neither Stokes nor Jordan looked especially penetrative in the West Indies, and it may be that Mark Wood gets the nod.  England are casting about for a magic bullet here, and Wood is the latest to solve all difficulties no doubt.  But if he is selected, then it should be for both Tests and the first couple against Australia.  Like with Lyth, he’s been given something of a hospital pass by being overlooked for any of the Tests last month, and now will have to come in against markedly stronger opposition.

The question of the coach rumbles on, with mixed opinions on whether Gillespie was showing interest in the England job, or indicating that he would politely turn them down.  Strauss has let it be known that there is no rush to find a coach, even if it involves going into the Ashes without one.  In a sense this is reasonable, taking time to find the right one is a good thing.  Yet if there was no rush, why summarily sack Peter Moores with no replacement lined up?  It’s more muddled thinking and behaviour.

This is a defining summer for Alastair Cook.  Appointing Joe Root to the vice captaincy has signalled that failure this summer will be the end of him as captain.  By affirming his position England have effectively served notice on it.  Winning is the only way he can survive, and scoring runs is an imperative.  It’s the end game, and now it’s up to him.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Closing Ranks

thelegglance123 Comments

It’s been quite striking the last couple of days how those who adore the establishment that is the ECB have adopted a “move on, nothing to see here” approach.  As usual, they do not answer the questions or objections that have been levelled by the hoi polloi, but instead repeat the same old lines about it being about the future, and that for undisclosed reasons, this is the right decision, and indeed the only decision.

Strauss should be trusted to do the right thing, Colin Graves is an honourable man and certainly didn’t intend to mislead, and we all know what Kevin Pietersen was guilty of (I can’t tell you though) and therefore deserves everything he got.

It’s nonsense though.

Colin Graves’ self-serving statement did nothing but use the lawyer technique of picking something no-one had accused him of, and denying it strongly.  No one ever claimed Pietersen had been guaranteed a place.  No one.  Not Pietersen himself, nor anyone else.  Claiming that private conversations had been talked about in the press deliberately ignored his own public statements which no matter how the apologists try and squirm, were absolutely clear and repeated on more than one occasion.  It was in any case more than slightly hypocritical given the BBC announced the outcome of the Pietersen/Strauss/Harrison meeting within minutes of it being over.  Since then we’ve had reports that Pietersen went out “in a blaze of glory” shouting expletives at the other two.  Since there were only three of them present, that means that if true, the information has come from either Strauss or Harrison – probably via a third party who likes to pass this on.  It’s a matter of trust you see.

Ian Bell’s press conference statements appear to have been largely glossed over.  But they are important because of who it was saying it, and what he said.  One of the constant refrains in the whole affair has been about what the players think about it all.  But the players won’t think about it overly because they will be thinking about themselves.  For the batsmen, no Pietersen means that they are just a little bit more secure in their position.  All players will first and foremost be interested in themselves and their own careers.  Bell was telling the absolute truth when he said they didn’t think about it much when they were in the West Indies and nor should they either.  Very few people in any walk of life are prepared to put their heads above the parapet for another, they prefer to keep their heads down, focus on themselves and hope it doesn’t happen to them.  That’s why the ECB got away with it initially – not because of some overwhelming support in the dressing room, which seems to amount to two or three players, but because the others would not stand up and object when it risked their own position and own careers.  It’s not malicious, it’s simply human nature.

Yet what Bell said contradicted so much of the ECB line.  He didn’t come out firing, he quietly and firmly had his say and deserves credit for doing so.  Much was made of his backing for Strauss in his new role, but again this should come as a surprise to no-one.  Players will accept the hierarchy in which they work because they can’t individually change it, and the public comments will always be in favour, no matter what their private feelings.  Yet there’s no reason to doubt that Bell absolutely meant it, because the players – especially the senior ones – will want stability.  The problem is that the behaviour of the ECB does just the opposite, and that has been the criticism all along.  Ignoring the rest of what Bell said, which runs so counter to the official line, simply reinforces the dim view taken of the way the ECB conduct themselves.

As much as the press obsess over Pietersen, they continue to miss the point about the whole matter and simply store up the resentment and indeed the story for later.  The termination of Pietersen’s chances does not provide closure on the whole affair; it might do to an extent were England to carry all before them this summer, because as much as it might fester amongst the supporters, it gives the press something different to write about, and the lack of trust amongst the supporters that has been so vocally put forward would reduced to a rumble.  That’s still damaging, especially when they don’t buy tickets, but it wouldn’t be front and centre in the media.  That is unlikely and there is the distinct possibility the summer could be a complete cricketing calamity.  If that were to transpire, every single one of these issues is going to be highly visible once again.  The fundamental point the ECB cannot address, no matter how much they try and obfuscate, is that their new policy is not one of selecting the best players on cricketing merit.  And that means should England lose Tests, the same questions will be put to them, as to whether England would be a better team if Pietersen were in it.  They’ve managed to turn the whole issue of a single player into a fundamental question of how they operate, in which Pietersen is simply the catalyst for questioning that approach.  At some point a player will step out of line.  They don’t dare drop him without inviting the same opprobrium.

The same applies to the question of who they will appoint as coach.  There have been enough indications that at best Gillespie is uncertain whether he would want to take a role where the Director, Cricket (that writing that title is in itself an instance of sarcasm demonstrates their problem) has already decided who can’t be picked and who is captain with no input or apparent authority from that coach means that there is the distinct possibility that the most able candidates will rule themselves out.  And if that happens, and we are left with another Peter Moores – presumably whoever gets it is at most the second best coach of his generation – then they have indeed sacrificed the England cricket team’s ability to succeed on the altar of their dislike of Pietersen.  This is a critical point, which has not been directly addressed in the discussion around the whole debacle.  If the unqualified removal of Pietersen from consideration results directly in being unable to engage a coach of the highest quality, that is not acting in the interests of the England team, and undermines the repeated claims to be acting in the medium to long term.

With the gift for timing that we have come to expect from the ECB, Tom Harrison chose this week of all weeks to effectively kill off the prospects of cricket appearing on free to air television:

“Sky have been a great partner for English cricket, going forward, we need to be very careful about the way in which this argument is understood. Is there a role for terrestrial television post the current deal with Sky. Terrestrial is becoming, frankly, less relevant every single year in the context of how people consume media. I don’t think we solve all our participation concerns by terrestrial television.”

Again, it’s using an argument advanced by absolutely no-one to defend the actions of the ECB.  No one has ever claimed putting cricket on free to air solves all problems, but it doesn’t mean for a second that at least some on there wouldn’t help.  All comparable sports make the effort to put some of their output on terrestrial TV, even those who took the Sky shilling long ago like rugby league.  Most sports try to ensure there is a balance – the money from Sky is undoubtedly important, but so is exposure on as wide a platform as possible.

Everyone is aware that consumption of audio visual output has changed and will continue to change over the years ahead, but failing to take into account how people discover the game is potentially crippling.  Cricket tragics will tend to eventually pay up if they can so they can watch.  The casual viewer will not, unless they are already interested in other sports and the bundling of content gives them cricket they would not specifically pay for.  Yet the ECB consistently tries to ignore the wider issue in favour of re-writing history.  Colin Graves – a man of integrity so he claims vociferously said:

“It would be nice to have some cricket on terrestrial television but the problem we have got is terrestrial television does not want cricket.  It certainly does not want Test cricket. We have to get best of all worlds, but if terrestrial broadcasters don’t want cricket, then what can you do?”

This misses the point and is completely disingenous.  It is hardly surprising terrestrial broadcasters are uninterested when it is abundantly clear that they have no prospect whatever of winning a contract to show it.  Why should they invest time and effort in thinking about where they could fit it into their schedules when they know perfectly well they have no chance and that the ECB will go with the highest bidder – which will be Sky unless BT Sport decide to jump in.  If the ECB were to state that they wanted Test cricket on terrestrial television and then no broadcaster showed an interest, then they could claim that.  Unless that happens it’s simply more mendacity from an organisation that seems to find telling the truth challenging in all circumstances.

The argument has been made that young people consume their media in  other ways than television these days.  That is true, but whether via X-Box, Playstation, iPad (other tablets are available – they really are) or anything else comparable, you still need that Sky subscription to watch it.  Unless you access illegal streams.  One would presume the ECB are not advocating that approach.

In any case, it pre-supposes an existing interest.  This does not happen by default, in order to develop an interest in a sport initially there must be some kind of exposure to it.  That may be from a parent, in which case all is well because that parent may imbue the child with the enthusiasm for the sport, but what if the parent hasn’t the finance or the interest in cricket in the first place?  The child will never casually come across cricket if the household does not have Sky Sports, and the idea that media output from the ECB will compensate for that is nonsensical – only those with an established interest will seek it out.

Cricket has become a niche sport, and the focus of the ECB’s response to criticism has been in terms of the England team.  But that is not their whole role in cricket, they are responsible for it at all levels.  The loss of cricket in schools has to some extent been offset by the clubs who have made astonishing efforts to drive interest; indeed the clubs have been instrumental in taking cricket into schools themselves.  As much as the ECB like to congratulate themselves for that, much of the funding comes from Sport England, who have expressed serious concerns about the decline in participation and warned their funding cannot be taken for granted, and most of the effort comes from people down at club and village level, who despair of where the next generation of cricketers will come from unless they do it themselves.

Cricket Australia have taken a fundamentally different approach.  The media position there is not radically different to the UK – and the point about youth televisual consumption is identical to here.  CA insist on cricket being free to air, and even take out advertisments promoting the game on Australian television.  By the ECB insisting their approach is the only one for the UK, they are directly saying that the Australian one is not the way.  There might be differences in the structure of TV between the two countries, but they are not so vast a comparison cannot be made.

Whether it be on the continuing fall out from the Pietersen omnishambles, the question of the coach, the matter of Alastair Cook being affirmed as England captain, or the subject of cricket on television, it is possible the ECB are right, and others wrong.  And in the last case, I would dearly like to be wrong.

Trouble is, I fear I’m not wrong at all.

UPDATE: Since this post was originally put up, the press have released articles concerning what Stuart Broad said about Pietersen.  Essentially it amounts to saying he’d have no objection to Pietersen playing, that the differences between them have been exaggerated, and perhaps most tellingly that he’s not spoken to anyone above him in the ECB about it.  Can anyone find anyone else in the England team apart from Cook who has a problem with him?  Because it seems to be narrowing the field by the day.

@BlueEarthMngmnt