The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[GIMH]

Reckon he's thinking of Cook

 

[Precambrian]

England regains the Ashes in 2009 (What if)

Tongue in cheek prediction of Ashes 2009 in the Telegraph

Wednesday 12 July 2009: First Test, Cardiff:
England’s captain, Kevin Pietersen, has a spring in his step and a lion shaved into the stubble on his head. Freddie Flintoff, free from injury for the first time in years, takes seven first-innings wickets as the Aussies are skittled for 72. “It was the pitch,” mutters touring captain Ricky Ponting. “We’re used to playing in New South Wales, not the old one.”
England post a handy first-innings total of 409, with a century from back-in-form Andrew Strauss and a 37-ball 50 from Pietersen.
Stuart Broad is imperious when Australia bat again, and the tourists succumb to an innings defeat. “Bloody Wales,” cries Ponting, who cops a pair.

Thursday 24 August: Fifth Test, The Brit Oval:
Venue renamed the England Oval; Australia decline to show up because they are sulking like girls. England win Ashes series 4-0.
The resurgent economy booms, only in a way that helps everyone except bankers. Hooray. Kevin Pietersen knighted, shaves image of the Queen into head-stubble for ceremony.

 

[Richard]

ITSTL.

Only thing that's completely beyond the bounds of realism is the Broad thing.

 

[Precambrian]

Monty (158) and Ian Bell (17 n.o) is not out of this dimension?

 

[Richard]

Only read the excerpts you quoted TBH, not the whole thing.

 

[GIMH]

I think the Broad thing could happen as well, it's not like it's impossible that he might take a bagful in a Test sometime in the future

 

[Richard]

I think next year might be pushing it a bit.

 

[GIMH]

Don't see why. Predicting one awesome match next year isn't the same as tipping him to be a complete bowler next year. I certainly don't expect Broad to be a world-class Test bowler this time next year but would not be surprised if he turned in an excellent performance in the long-form, sooner rather than later.

 

[Richard]

I would, ITBT.

Until there's signs of him actually becoming a good bowler, I won't be predicting so much as one good performance, because any such thing would likely require poor batting, and as such would be completely random and could happen either any time or never.

 

[tooextracool]

I think Cook's been given the aggressor role. Against SA, he did always seem to score at a decent pace, a strike rate of above 50. The problem i foresee with Cook is that he depends on being exceptionally fantastic at a few shots. Smith missed a trick here this summer, but i fancy if you use a third man and deep square leg and don't bowl any short stuff, the runs could dry up to a massive extent. And with his foot movement, it often seems like only a matter of time before he nicks one.

Cook's my favourite batsman in the England team at the minute, and i'd tip him to have an excellent career. But there's definitely a lot of improvement that needs to be made first.

I think it is fairly obvious that SA bowled very very poorly against England. I mentioned during the series that England probably bowled better than SA for most of the series and I think that was clearly the case. I agree that Ntini and Morkel continually bowled short and into his body despite the fact that hes a good puller and hooker and a poor player of the full ball. At this point in time, I cannot see Cook getting a 100 or playing aggressively against any bowling attack that can bowl line and length. Cook has age on his side, if he was 28-29, he would and should have been dropped in a heartbeat.

 

[Woodster]

In the last 12 months, Cook is behind only KP in leading runscorers in Test cricket for England, so talk of him being dropped is more than a little harsh I think.

However, he does need to start converting his 50's into big scores. Nine times he has passed 50 in the last 12 months and only once has he converted it into three figures. Therein lies one of his problems.

Ian Bell is another that needs to cash in when he is in form and set in an innings. I believe he is there to stay in the England side providing he can formulate a strategy to score runs despite not being in glorious nick. When he does make runs, he does so elegantly with exceptional timing and is truly beautiful to watch. But if it not his day he needs to grind out the runs till he gets his touch back.

 

[Woodster]

On the Andrew Strauss point, I also have no problem with how he played against NZ. He went back to old Test match virtues, he played at nothing he didn't need to, was patient and when he could, he put the bad ball away and generally waited for the ball to be in the area of his strengths. But against SA there were bad signs creeping back in. Is he Englands opener for the next few years ? I don't think so.

 

[Jakester1288]

Didn't make one TBH, Bell either got a decent-size innings or nothing. No really big scores and no virtually no middling ones either.

Maybe I was thinking of his 87. Hmm... Nevermind, he played a few decent knocks, a couple of 50's, but never went on with it. He made way to many smalls scores, under 30 though.

Reckon he's thinking of Cook

Probably was.

 

[GIMH]

Paul is on the money on all of the top three IMO. Just want to talk a bit more about Cook.

I have been very critical of Cook for his failure to convert. That being said, a clunter-argument presented to my criticism, which I can accept, is that an opener's job is to see off the new ball. He did that through most of the summer, it's not really his fault that when he got out everyone else thought it would be a good idea to do the same. That being said, turn those 60s into regular centuries and we could have the best opener in the world; it's not a strong position in Test Cricket at the minute anyhow so he can definitely do it.

Another thing about Cook, his HS is currently 127, just further backs up his failure to make it count sometimes. But yeah, keep him in the team, he's my age I think and already has about six Test tons, not too shabby ITBT

 

[GIMH]

Probably was.

He scored something like 116 in Perth, it wasn't enough but it seemed to match your description of the innings you thought Bell had played. Might have been his 87 though.

 

[tooextracool]

In the last 12 months, Cook is behind only KP in leading runscorers in Test cricket for England, so talk of him being dropped is more than a little harsh I think.

However, he does need to start converting his 50's into big scores. Nine times he has passed 50 in the last 12 months and only once has he converted it into three figures. Therein lies one of his problems.

Ian Bell is another that needs to cash in when he is in form and set in an innings. I believe he is there to stay in the England side providing he can formulate a strategy to score runs despite not being in glorious nick. When he does make runs, he does so elegantly with exceptional timing and is truly beautiful to watch. But if it not his day he needs to grind out the runs till he gets his touch back.

I dont think he should be dropped, but being the best of a bad bunch is not something to shout about. Hes being acceptable over the past year or so, but hes got to make a lot of improvements in order to be a serious force in test match cricket.
His conversion rate is actually not really suggestive of his true problems. He just doesnt have a good enough technique to bat for a long period of time in test cricket, its not a temperament issue at the moment. Hands down he has the best temperament in the side.

 

[tooextracool]

On the Andrew Strauss point, I also have no problem with how he played against NZ. He went back to old Test match virtues, he played at nothing he didn't need to, was patient and when he could, he put the bad ball away and generally waited for the ball to be in the area of his strengths. But against SA there were bad signs creeping back in. Is he Englands opener for the next few years ? I don't think so.

Yeah hes done ok off late, but at the moment it seems like he labors his way to 40-50 odd after playing more than twice as many balls and then eventually either plays a bad stroke or gets out to a good ball. As you mentioned, its fairly obvious that even if he plays to the best of his ability he would still only be a servicable option, not someone who could be considered as a 'good player'.

 

[Woodster]

Paul is on the money on all of the top three IMO. Just want to talk a bit more about Cook.

I have been very critical of Cook for his failure to convert. That being said, a clunter-argument presented to my criticism, which I can accept, is that an opener's job is to see off the new ball. He did that through most of the summer, it's not really his fault that when he got out everyone else thought it would be a good idea to do the same. That being said, turn those 60s into regular centuries and we could have the best opener in the world; it's not a strong position in Test Cricket at the minute anyhow so he can definitely do it.

Another thing about Cook, his HS is currently 127, just further backs up his failure to make it count sometimes. But yeah, keep him in the team, he's my age I think and already has about six Test tons, not too shabby ITBT

I'm glad we agree Martyn.
I think that seeing off the new ball is part of an openers job description, but not the entire role. It is generally the hardest part, seeing off the quicks armed with a new ball gaining assistance from the conditions and track, but once they see that passage through and a change of bowling occurs, it's feasible their concentration levels just click down a touch, of course not all openers. So once they see the new ball, a new focus is required to then ensure they take advantage of 'being in' and the ball probably not doing as much, cash in.

In India, Cook may be forgiven for seeing off Ishant and Zaheer and thinking the hard work is done, where as in truth, it may only be just beginning for him.

As Martyn says, actually seven tons at his age is already pretty impressive, but I'm sure he'll be keen to extend his highest score. Not sure that's going to happen in India though, hope I'm wrong.

 

[Richard]

Paul is on the money on all of the top three IMO. Just want to talk a bit more about Cook.

I have been very critical of Cook for his failure to convert. That being said, a clunter-argument presented to my criticism, which I can accept, is that an opener's job is to see off the new ball. He did that through most of the summer, it's not really his fault that when he got out everyone else thought it would be a good idea to do the same. That being said, turn those 60s into regular centuries and we could have the best opener in the world; it's not a strong position in Test Cricket at the minute anyhow so he can definitely do it.

Another thing about Cook, his HS is currently 127, just further backs up his failure to make it count sometimes. But yeah, keep him in the team, he's my age I think and already has about six Test tons, not too shabby ITBT

As tec has said, Cook's done pretty well of late in terms of not getting out cheaply early on, but he still has technical faults. If the ball moves into him a decent amount or away from him outside the off-stump, he still lacks. His powers of concentration are far better than Strauss', but right now Strauss fills me with more confidence against the moving ball because his defence against the inswinger and his judgement of where his off-stump is are better.

TBH, it's been a pleasant surprise to me how few low scores Cook's got of late, because as I say every time I see him bat those technical flaws are still very much in evidence, though fair to say NZ and SA didn't exploit them quite as they might have and as others have.

I don't doubt that should he be able to nimble-ise his footwork a bit to reduce his vulnerability to the inswinger (obviously a good quick inswinger will trouble any left-hander, so you're never going to completely eliminate it), and also get better at knowing where his off-stump is so he's not constantly playing defensive shots at balls that are not hitting the stumps, then we could indeed have the best opener on the planet on our hands. The fact that these things have been a problem for a while, though, attests to the fact that it's not an easy thing to do.

 

[Uppercut]

I think it is fairly obvious that SA bowled very very poorly against England. I mentioned during the series that England probably bowled better than SA for most of the series and I think that was clearly the case. I agree that Ntini and Morkel continually bowled short and into his body despite the fact that hes a good puller and hooker and a poor player of the full ball.

Errrr, sort of. To be more accurate, SA's bowling was more erratic than bad. Anderson and Flintoff bowled far, far more accurately than Steyn or Morkel ever did, but Steyn was often more of a threat because of the extra few Ks and Morkel because of his extra bit of bounce. The deliveries that got English batsmen out were generally very good ones, SA just failed to hit the right areas consistently.

Players like Broad and Flintoff did hit good areas consistently, but lacked that little bit extra to trouble batsmen- the extravagant bounce of Morkel or express pace and swing of Steyn (bar one spell at Edgebaston where Flintoff was on fire). Panesar bowled poorly, his lack of an arm ball proving a major liability on last-day pitches where every ball will turn. The one bowler who got much less than he deserved was Anderson, who was brilliant throughout. Kallis, too, bowled as well as anyone in that series.

Obviously, it was SA's batting that won them the series, but the difference between the bowling wasn't THAT much. Accuracy is only one part of the equation, and after the Lords pie-throwing festival, SA improved majorly.

As for Cook, his weakness isn't against erratic pace and bounce, it's against the full ball that moves a bit in the air. SA failed to deliver it consistently, but Chaminda Vaas had a great time with it not so long ago. I'd fancy Zaheer Khan to have some success in the next series too.