After the Whitewash (or How to Lose the Ashes)

[PY]

Stewie! Stewie! Stewie!

The way Alec took the Aussies to pieces in the Golden Oldies match, I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Anil]

pretty good article neil!

 

[Saqqy Mush]

These are the fruits of a train journey between Cleethorpes and approximately Rotherham.

Feedback appreciated.

Didn't take long to spot an error.

Opening line of point one.

1: CAPTAINCY
Pick the wrong man
You have at your disposal the finest all-round cricketer in the world,

They don't.

 

[adharcric]

Top article Neil. Definitely agree with regard to the captaincy, superficial team balance and selection of non-performing bowlers.
Had England gone in the right direction in all six of these areas, there were still huge issues that would have guaranteed an Australian victory IMO.

1) Flintoff was not at full fitness and was very ineffective (by his standards) with bat and ball. England cannot hope to defeat Australia without their world-class all-rounder firing.

2) Harmison generally lacks consistency and things went terribly wrong here. This is one reason I've been saying that England are too inconsistent to be the #2 test side in the world. The reason they had retained that position leading up to these Ashes is because all of the other contenders are equally inconsistent.

3) The Australians were out on the field driven by revenge, passion and attitude. Conquering such a talented team with additional drive is a huge ask and England would have to be at it's very, very best to compete IMO.

Of course, England could have made a decent contest of this by making the right decisions in the areas you have mentioned. They could have even made a very good contest of this by doing all that and having Flintoff and Harmison at their best. Honestly, I don't think they could have defeated a driven Aussie side of such caliber. That's just my opinion.

 

[adharcric]

Just like Virender Sehwag, Steve Harmison is an immense talent who is terribly inconsistent. The selectors need to teach him a lesson and send him back to domestic cricket.
He seems to have made that choice for them since he won't be playing in the World Cup. Is there FC cricket between now and India's tour of England?

Flintoff is not reliable enough to bat at #6, especially with someone like Jones or Read coming in at #7. There is nothing special about playing five bowlers if a few of them are bowling or being bowled like part-timers. Pietersen and Collingwood can provide support if necessary and England should go with a four-man attack until Flintoff is good enough at #6 and a wicketkeeper is found who can consistently produce 30 runs at #7.

 

[pasag]

Didn't take long to spot an error.

Opening line of point one.

1: CAPTAINCY
Pick the wrong man
You have at your disposal the finest all-round cricketer in the world,

They don't.

 

[Richard]

^^^^

And yet at the moment nothing's still been done about 't...

 

[Barney Rubble]

Skull, nailed on.

 

[tooextracool]

without wanting to sound pessimistic but why is there no mention of fitness? I mean its an absolute joke that both Jon Lewis(who didnt even play the test series) is already injured, as is Anderson. Surely it cant be coincidence that we havent been able to put our first string side in nearly 2 years? I mean everyday when i log onto cricinfo i find that someone else in the England side is injured, its absolutely ridiculous.
For mine, flintoff and anderson(and plunkett) might both have been considered fit and ready for the tour, but both were clearly short of match practice. Why on earth did it take until after his horrendous performance in the first 2 tests to start putting in all that effort in the nets? I mean what was he thinking? that his game would just fall into place when he walked onto the field? Why has Flintoff's fielding standard dropped over the last few years?
Why was Troy Cooley let go?
There are far too many factors to count really.

 

[Neil Pickup]

without wanting to sound pessimistic but why is there no mention of fitness? I mean its an absolute joke that both Jon Lewis(who didnt even play the test series) is already injured, as is Anderson. Surely it cant be coincidence that we havent been able to put our first string side in nearly 2 years? I mean everyday when i log onto cricinfo i find that someone else in the England side is injured, its absolutely ridiculous.
For mine, flintoff and anderson(and plunkett) might both have been considered fit and ready for the tour, but both were clearly short of match practice. Why on earth did it take until after his horrendous performance in the first 2 tests to start putting in all that effort in the nets? I mean what was he thinking? that his game would just fall into place when he walked onto the field? Why has Flintoff's fielding standard dropped over the last few years?
Why was Troy Cooley let go?
There are far too many factors to count really.

"2: BOWLING
Ensure your attack is selected based on your checklist, and that it has barely played cricket for a year"

 

[Salamuddin]

I can't believe the POms wanna give up a five man attack of Flintoof, Hoggard, Harmison Jones and Mudhsudhan Singh.
It's pretty much what gave you the success in 2003-2005.

Look at the real problem - the fact that your wicketkepper can't bat

 

[marc71178]

I can't believe the POms wanna give up a five man attack of Flintoof, Hoggard, Harmison Jones and Mudhsudhan Singh.
It's pretty much what gave you the success in 2003-2005.

Erm no, it's not because Panesar didn't play in that period and using those listed 5 names makes the tail pathetic.

 

[Richard]

I can't believe the POms wanna give up a five man attack of Flintoof, Hoggard, Harmison Jones and Mudhsudhan Singh.
It's pretty much what gave you the success in 2003-2005.

Look at the real problem - the fact that your wicketkepper can't bat

Substitute Giles for MSP (and change 2003 to 2004, we had very little success in 2003 other than against the might of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and you'd be correct there.

And why, because Harmison happened to have a bit of success at the start of 2004 does that mean he should still be an automatic pick now?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Substitute Giles for MSP (and change 2003 to 2004, we had very little success in 2003 other than against the might of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and you'd be correct there.

And why, because Harmison happened to have a bit of success at the start of 2004 does that mean he should still be an automatic pick now?

He was the no.1 bowler in the world

 

[Richard]

Not in that period he wasn't - he reached number-two at the end of his successful period (which ended with the Third Test against New Zealand)

A dud ranking system then somehow moved him up after 3 abysmal games and 1 good one.

Almost as dud as the name itself - which reflect form and nothing else. Harmison was not ranked number-one - at best, he was ranked most-in-form in The World.

 

[tooextracool]

"2: BOWLING
Ensure your attack is selected based on your checklist, and that it has barely played cricket for a year"

I dont think Jon Lewis, Anderson, Vaughan, Flintoff, Simon Jones, Plunkett and everyone else constantly getting injured has to do with selection tbh. When was the last time we put a fully fit side(even if you exclude Vaughan and Jones) on the cricket field? Honestly there has to be a reason why Englands side is the least fit side in the world bar NZ.

 

[tooextracool]

Erm no, it's not because Panesar didn't play in that period and using those listed 5 names makes the tail pathetic.

the tail has only been pathetic because geraint has been part of it.

 

[marc71178]

Not really - the 4 below him aren't much cop.

The more I think about it the more I come around to using 4 bowlers and putting Read in at 8.

 

[wpdavid]

Not really - the 4 below him aren't much cop.

The more I think about it the more I come around to using 4 bowlers and putting Read in at 8.

 

[Richard]

Why have Read at eight when there are better options?