Onto 2015

[GIMH]

I haven't said anything about changing the coach mate.

I'm not sure at this point how deep-reaching these problems are.

We were poor for the bulk of 2012 but won in India, an achievement that is one of the finest of my life for the England team IMO.

We were very poor away to New Zealand, better at home to them and then we were good at times in the home summer. Yeah this series thus far has been a disaster, and save for a miracle the Ashes are gone, but I don't want another Schofield Report.

We need better batting. More settled line ups. The only new guy who's had an extended run is Root and he's even shunted about. Compton didn't exactly get long. Bairstow has been in and out. Taylor got, what, one or two games? Morgan was probably the last one to get a fair extended crack.

And with the bowling, Australia have used their resources very well these last couple of years. There is massive pressure on any bowler who comes into our side besides the 'big three' because they know the axe is just round the corner. We need to find a way to manage this better.

Or maybe we just need better players, I dunno.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Well if it isn't an attitude thing, whats the point in sacking Flower? We realistically aren't going to be making great swathing changes to the team. The guys who are behind just aren't good enough save for a couple (still maintain James Taylor will score runs at test level when he gets the chance). Whats the point having a new guy coming in saying the same stuff Flower did? Especially as most of the squad already know him well from LO scene.

Why was Taylor dropped like a bad habit and someone like Bairstow persisted with? Has Taylor's form in county cricket nose dived? I thought he was the next big thing.

 

[91Jmay]

Taylor's form in CC has been fine ( 925 runs at 46.25 with a best of 204*, better than Carberry in Div 2 for example) but they liked Bairstow because he scores quickly. England have/had this plan that the top 3 blunt and wear down the bowling then KP, Bell, Prior and Bairstow accelerate and post up a big score. That's our theory, the reality is obviously nothing like that at all. They don't like Taylor because he is small and they think has a limited scope to get on top of the bowling, personally think that's tosh though.

I also read somewhere that Flower was really affected by Matt Priors back spasm against the Windies when he was caretaker coach and him nearly not keeping. He was worried about having a batsmen have to keep, so loved the idea of two keepers in the team.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Ok interesting.

I was always under the impression that to the experts and people who closely follow CC that in terms of young batting talent there was Taylor and then the rest in terms of ability. He put up some crazy numbers early.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

IL he is rated but for some reason he has been ignored after being thrown in against SA. Might get a chance now as something has to give and there is a spot open now with Trott gone.

 

[Furball]

I haven't said anything about changing the coach mate.

I'm not sure at this point how deep-reaching these problems are.

The big issue for me is that the England selectors seem to have completely lost the plot in terms of their selection.

3 years ago you had a settled XI and a clear pecking order. Now? Nothing of the sort exists.

Woakes and Kerrigan were deemed good enough to play in the final Test of the home series, neither player has travelled to Australia.
Onions superceded Finn as England's back up bowler for 3 Tests then didn't get the nod when Bresnan was injured, then also was not named in the party for Australia while Rankin and Finn suddenly found themselves back in favour. Tremlett went from the fringes to the 1st Test to nowhere to be seen.
Root's gone from number 6 to "nailed on future opener" to "whoops, maybe that was a bit premature, back to 6 you go" to "****, Trott's broken, up to 3 you go."
Nick Compton's gone from opener to "we're giving you a couple of tour games against Australia to see how you go" to "nah, we're going with Root, sorry" to "we're plucking this guy out of division 2 for the tour down under, have a fun winter"
James Taylor's gone from first reserve batsman, scoring a ton against Australia in the process, to not on the tour as he's not as good as Ballance.

There is just absolutely no rhyme or reason to England's selection at the moment and it really does not bode well for the future given that we've failed completely to replace Collingwood in the 3 years since his retirement (mirroring India's problems replacing Sourav Ganguly) and we have an ageing and failing batting line up. It inspires no confidence.

At least when Eoin Morgan was picked there was a clear process and logic involved in his selection. Regardless of whether you think Morgan was the right person for the job, or whether or not you think his initial call-up was justified (hint: no), when he was called up to face Bangladesh it was because Collingwood got a rest. Then Bell got injured, and Morgan did alright against Pakistan. He then toured Australia as the reserve batsman, before getting first dibs on number 6 once Collingwood retired, and cemented his place with 193 against the Sri Lankans for the Lions. He was then given 10 Tests, 7 of which were against extremely friendly attacks at home, and he didn't really do anywhere near enough to justify or cement his place, so he was discarded. However, he'd played 16 of the 21 Tests in between his debut and the end of the UAE shambles, so he'd had a fair crack of the whip.

Now? Who knows what's going on. And that for me was the big concern prior to the tour, and it's why I'm not surprised that England are getting beaten badly.

 

[Burgey]

It's interesting to see how England, barring yesterday really when the game was up and they played with freedom and nothing to lose, seem to only bat in one gear (not third). It's very one paced for the most part and as others have said, there doesn't seem to be a plan B when it isn't working. Your problem if you drop someone like KP is you're taking away one of th few batsmen who can play an up tempo game.

If you're playing moderate bowling then you can go along as you please. But if you have an attack which is bowling well, the approach England takes to its batting doesn't really throw much pressure back on the bowlers.

 

[91Jmay]

The big issue for me is that the England selectors seem to have completely lost the plot in terms of their selection.

3 years ago you had a settled XI and a clear pecking order. Now? Nothing of the sort exists.

Woakes and Kerrigan were deemed good enough to play in the final Test of the home series, neither player has travelled to Australia.
Onions superceded Finn as England's back up bowler for 3 Tests then didn't get the nod when Bresnan was injured, then also was not named in the party for Australia while Rankin and Finn suddenly found themselves back in favour. Tremlett went from the fringes to the 1st Test to nowhere to be seen.
Root's gone from number 6 to "nailed on future opener" to "whoops, maybe that was a bit premature, back to 6 you go" to "****, Trott's broken, up to 3 you go."
Nick Compton's gone from opener to "we're giving you a couple of tour games against Australia to see how you go" to "nah, we're going with Root, sorry" to "we're plucking this guy out of division 2 for the tour down under, have a fun winter"
James Taylor's gone from first reserve batsman, scoring a ton against Australia in the process, to not on the tour as he's not as good as Ballance.

There is just absolutely no rhyme or reason to England's selection at the moment and it really does not bode well for the future given that we've failed completely to replace Collingwood in the 3 years since his retirement (mirroring India's problems replacing Sourav Ganguly) and we have an ageing and failing batting line up. It inspires no confidence.

At least when Eoin Morgan was picked there was a clear process and logic involved in his selection. Regardless of whether you think Morgan was the right person for the job, or whether or not you think his initial call-up was justified (hint: no), when he was called up to face Bangladesh it was because Collingwood got a rest. Then Bell got injured, and Morgan did alright against Pakistan. He then toured Australia as the reserve batsman, before getting first dibs on number 6 once Collingwood retired, and cemented his place with 193 against the Sri Lankans for the Lions. He was then given 10 Tests, 7 of which were against extremely friendly attacks at home, and he didn't really do anywhere near enough to justify or cement his place, so he was discarded. However, he'd played 16 of the 21 Tests in between his debut and the end of the UAE shambles, so he'd had a fair crack of the whip.

Now? Who knows what's going on. And that for me was the big concern prior to the tour, and it's why I'm not surprised that England are getting beaten badly.

Yeah I agree with this for the most part, although you have to be careful to not go the other way and have 15 guys who are Team England and no one else ever gets a look in. But certainly if they felt Woakes was good enough at the Oval, its staggering to not take him down under.

 

[Furball]

Yeah I agree with this for the most part, although you have to be careful to not go the other way and have 15 guys who are Team England and no one else ever gets a look in. But certainly if they felt Woakes was good enough at the Oval, its staggering to not take him down under.

I don't see the issue with this. How many sides really have someone who's 5th or 6th choice who's realistically Test standard anyway?

 

[hendrix]

The big issue for me is that the England selectors seem to have completely lost the plot in terms of their selection.

3 years ago you had a settled XI and a clear pecking order. Now? Nothing of the sort exists.

Woakes and Kerrigan were deemed good enough to play in the final Test of the home series, neither player has travelled to Australia.
Onions superceded Finn as England's back up bowler for 3 Tests then didn't get the nod when Bresnan was injured, then also was not named in the party for Australia while Rankin and Finn suddenly found themselves back in favour. Tremlett went from the fringes to the 1st Test to nowhere to be seen.
Root's gone from number 6 to "nailed on future opener" to "whoops, maybe that was a bit premature, back to 6 you go" to "****, Trott's broken, up to 3 you go."
Nick Compton's gone from opener to "we're giving you a couple of tour games against Australia to see how you go" to "nah, we're going with Root, sorry" to "we're plucking this guy out of division 2 for the tour down under, have a fun winter"
James Taylor's gone from first reserve batsman, scoring a ton against Australia in the process, to not on the tour as he's not as good as Ballance.

There is just absolutely no rhyme or reason to England's selection at the moment and it really does not bode well for the future given that we've failed completely to replace Collingwood in the 3 years since his retirement (mirroring India's problems replacing Sourav Ganguly) and we have an ageing and failing batting line up. It inspires no confidence.

At least when Eoin Morgan was picked there was a clear process and logic involved in his selection. Regardless of whether you think Morgan was the right person for the job, or whether or not you think his initial call-up was justified (hint: no), when he was called up to face Bangladesh it was because Collingwood got a rest. Then Bell got injured, and Morgan did alright against Pakistan. He then toured Australia as the reserve batsman, before getting first dibs on number 6 once Collingwood retired, and cemented his place with 193 against the Sri Lankans for the Lions. He was then given 10 Tests, 7 of which were against extremely friendly attacks at home, and he didn't really do anywhere near enough to justify or cement his place, so he was discarded. However, he'd played 16 of the 21 Tests in between his debut and the end of the UAE shambles, so he'd had a fair crack of the whip.

Now? Who knows what's going on. And that for me was the big concern prior to the tour, and it's why I'm not surprised that England are getting beaten badly.

Yeah, this is a pretty ****ing good summary of the head-scratchers.

The final one, as has been mentioned plenty of times before; wtf is the point in dropping Onions for 3 7 footers if you're going to play none of them at the one venue at which they might actually be a handful? We all complained about the leniency Finn was given for a long time but there was actual justification for sticking with Tremlett after the first test, and really he wasn't that awful. Down on pace a touch but he didn't exactly have a shocker.

 

[hendrix]

I don't see the issue with this. How many sides really have someone who's 5th or 6th choice who's realistically Test standard anyway?

yeah, aside from Aussie's bowlers and maybe SA's batting depth, there's not a team in world cricket that wouldn't be significantly weakened by the absence of 2-3 players. Who the **** could realistically sub in for Anderson, even with his poor form?

 

[Furball]

Yeah, this is a pretty ****ing good summary of the head-scratchers.

The final one, as has been mentioned plenty of times before; wtf is the point in dropping Onions for 3 7 footers if you're going to play none of them at the one venue at which they might actually be a handful? We all complained about the leniency Finn was given for a long time but there was actual justification for sticking with Tremlett after the first test, and really he wasn't that awful. Down on pace a touch but he didn't exactly have a shocker.

On this as well; the logic behind picking Tremlett, Rankin and Finn for this series seems to have been "well, Tremlett did really well 3 years ago."

That they've made one solitary Test appearance between the 3 of them is completely damning as far as the selectors go.

I wish I'd articulated all of this when the squad was announced. I think my analysis of the squad that was picked was just that it was a really **** squad, so it looks like I'm wise after the event. But I had severe misgivings about the squad England picked, and sadly, it looks like those misgivings were well placed.

 

[Furball]

yeah, aside from Aussie's bowlers and maybe SA's batting depth, there's not a team in world cricket that wouldn't be significantly weakened by the absence of 2-3 players. Who the **** could realistically sub in for Anderson, even with his poor form?

No-one. England's attack goes to pieces without him.

This is Anderson's first properly bad series in years and the bowling has gone completely to ****.

 

[Adders]

Yeah, you just knew the game plan had totally gone to **** after all the talk of the big tall fast bowlers in the squad and we end up with Bresnan opening the bowling in Perth.

I reckon Furball is spot on with his summation.........clarity in selection has been a strength of this English side under Flower, now it's all over the place and is just baffling.

 

[hendrix]

I think a fair few points picked up on here when the squad was announced. It was sort of broadly mentioned that it was a very "un-English" selection policy in regards to the way they'd done things previously.

I mean, there were a fair few outsiders that had called for a more-than-temporary dropping of Stuart Broad after some poor returns in India and New Zealand. One almost gets the sense that the current mindset of the selectors may have deemed this appropriate - actually they wouldn't have even been unjustified in giving him a few months off given the injury concern. But they were pretty darn conservative and it frankly paid off beautifully for them.

Onions was royally ****ed but they'd always royally ****ed him. Dropping Compton was probably the first hint that things were a bit weird. Almost a bit of a "3rd gear" mindset really - "how the **** can an English batsman have a mediocre series against New Zealand?" i.e. not giving credit to the opposition etc. I have to say that I thought the Woakes selection was an extension of this arrogance.

 

[91Jmay]

My point was more that we shouldn't just decide that no wicket-keeper is ever good enough to replace Matt Prior, or no opener is good enough to replace Carberry because they are not one of the people we had decided 6 months earlier was in our pool of Team England.

 

[Cabinet96]

Furball WAG. Although i posted the same thing at the squad announcement and got no likes, so not particularly impressed with that.

 

[Cabinet96]

I think a fair few points picked up on here when the squad was announced. It was sort of broadly mentioned that it was a very "un-English" selection policy in regards to the way they'd done things previously.

I mean, there were a fair few outsiders that had called for a more-than-temporary dropping of Stuart Broad after some poor returns in India and New Zealand. One almost gets the sense that the current mindset of the selectors may have deemed this appropriate - actually they wouldn't have even been unjustified in giving him a few months off given the injury concern. But they were pretty darn conservative and it frankly paid off beautifully for them.

Onions was royally ****ed but they'd always royally ****ed him. Dropping Compton was probably the first hint that things were a bit weird. Almost a bit of a "3rd gear" mindset really - "how the **** can an English batsman have a mediocre series against New Zealand?" i.e. not giving credit to the opposition etc. I have to say that I thought the Woakes selection was an extension of this arrogance.

In what way? He was selected to allow for two spinners and it's not like it wasn't justified by Championship performances.

 

[Tromperie]

So what kind of hypothetical lineup could England be looking at for the next Ashes. If Pietersen calls it quits, something like:

Cook
Compton/Robson
Root
Taylor
Ballance
Buttler/Bairstow
Stokes
Broad
Coles/Meaker/Finn
Anderson
Kerrigan/Beer

12th Man : Tredwell/Panesar

?

I'm basing it on my by-no-means extensive knowledge of county cricket and various other aspects over the last couple of seasons, so I daresay hardly any of these players will feature!

 

[hendrix]

In what way? He was selected to allow for two spinners and it's not like it wasn't justified by Championship performances.

I suppose I'm biased against most allrounders really. I think the idea of playing 2 spinners was already a bit off, and then the idea that Woakes would be enough as third seamer was also a little silly.

They could've played any of their reserve third seamers and it would've been better preparation for the return series. Even resting Anderson or Broad would've made more sense to me than going for an allrounder.

I suppose that's not really arrogant.