What a shambles

[feverpitch]

This has been, without doubt, the worst winter in the history of English cricket. It is not overstating things to say that both the Ashes and World Cup could not have gone any worse. In nine games against top-eight opposition, England have lost every game; and only once, against Sri Lanka, did they even achieve an honorable defeat.

The one-day defeat to South Africa was utterly pathetic. England’s archaic strategy was exposed for what it is and, frankly, they were shown to be simply not good enough, lacking in fundamental quality and nous.

The fallout from the winter will be big. Duncan Fletcher, who has done a terrific job, will now surely have to go. Sadly, he has not vindicated those who laughed at Geoff Boycott’s suggestion in October that his time was up. Michael Vaughan, clearly, will have to be pushed aside as ODI captain; he is 32, so has no chance of playing in the next World Cup, and will leave behind an awful ODI record.

Andrew Flintoff, meanwhile, now cuts an increasingly forlorn figure; his batting has disintegrated to the point when number six, in both forms of the game looks ridiculous. More worryingly, his joie de vivre and self-confidence look shattered, perhaps irrevocably. Sajid Mahmood’s woefully erratic bowling, coupled with his laissez-faire attitude and the fundamental mistakes still present in his game – like putting his hand over the ball – are testament to England’s selection policy. Too often, players learn their trade on the international stage; meanwhile, individualism is coached out of them, meaning mavericks like a Lasith Malinga or a Sanath Jayasuriya are increasingly rare.

England were unlucky with injuries, but their continually baffling selection certainly didn’t help. Over the last three years, they have moved aimlessly from one one-day humiliation to the next. Though it is true that England could have had a reasonable World Cup side, had players in form two years ago remained fit and firing – Trescothick, Vaughan, Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, G.Jones, Giles, S.Jones, Harmison, Anderson – the selectors are at fault for developing no sort of coherent plan to develop others. Selections were haphazard, with the county circuit’s best English one-day batsman, Mal Loye, continually ignored, and perhaps the second best, Owais Shah, given just three games. They deserve credit for picking Ravi Bopara, and, to some extent, Paul Nixon, but not for “hunches” Bresnan, Ali, Loudon, Yardy et al.

The administrators are culpable too – for allowing a schedule which flogs their players mercilessly into the ground, and sees the World Cup directly after the Ashes tour. Basic flaws, typically, remain unadressed: there are still no Powerplays in domestic one-day cricket. In short, there was no structure in place for one-day success; all hopes were pinned on the freakish CB Series triumph and the idiosyncratic genius of Kevin Pietersen – not coincidentally, a player who learned his trade away from the age group system. England have, remarkably and astoundingly, won just one ODI series out of their last 12. Success in the World Cup would have concealed that. Only after an unmitigated shambles of a winter is there hope for a brighter future.

[Mike]

Anyone who saw the match could see the pitch offered good bounce and the white ball reversed for Hall. The side batting first is always at a disadvantage in guaging what is a competitive target to set. The England batsmen batted like the priority was to defend their wickets - not make runs. This is basically an admission that they chose the wrong option to bat first after winning the toss. Presumably it didn't take them long to realize that and many wickets were given away through sheer frustration at the pedestrian run-rate. When it came to South Africa's turn to bat they batted with the sort of enterprise that confident teams usually have.

There's no point in blaming individual players because the performance of the team is a product of the current management attitude to the one-day game. Despite their assertion that they do rate the importance of the one-day game their constant tampering with selections reveals no effective selection policy. The one-day team is simply used to give up-and-coming players experience at international level. It's about time that a specialist one-day coach was hired to emphasize the importance of the one-day game. His role is to build a unit of players who excel in the one-day format. Hopefully, this would end the England style of carrying Test players who don't play as well in the one-day format.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Mike

Anyone who saw the match could see the pitch offered good bounce and the white ball reversed for Hall.

Ah.. someone giving some credit where it is due: South Africa's performances in this World Cup have been variable, but when they have been good they have been VERY good... and against England they reminded everyone why they came into the World Cup as the World No 1 side.

Anyone recall the devastation and carnage this SA side wreaked just before the tournament started?

As for England's batting... the start was sensible enough, appropriate to the circumstances... and each opener looked like justifying his watchfulness immediately prior to his dismissal: Bell settled more quickly than Vaughan and was hardly out of order in thinking the hook was on when he got out... and Vaughan had just played a couple of glorious shots, reminiscent of his best ever form, immediately prior to his misjudgement.

Even at 3 down, England were in the driving seat: Barry Richards reckoned 225 would be a good score... and with Strauss and Collingwood at the crease this looked eminently feasible. At the 30 over mark England were 104/3.... with two well set batsmen looking eminently capable of scorring centuries and ALL the big hitters to come. The usual prediction is for a score to be doubled in the final 20 overs... but with that many wickets in hand, 230 was well within reach.

What followed was obviously not pretty: 111/3 to 121/7 is a blow from which no team can be expected to recover... but it is also something that can happen to any team! In itself, this one collapse is hardly grounds for concern... and whilst I'd agree that Flintoff's woeful lack of form with the bat has helped make this sort of thing all too familiar in this tournament... I don't see a huge problem with what happened.

Compare England's ODI winter with the bat with India's or Pakistan's and England look set fair... and even on a man for man match up with the World's No 1 ODI side... England's batting look fine. Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood are a fair match for DeVilliers, Gibbs and Kallis. In any other recent season, Flintoff has looked a match for Pollock. Players like Vaughan and Strauss look more than a match for (say) Prince.

On top of that, the England ring-fielding has been excellent, much of the bowling has been impressive and the England have given everyone OTHER than SA a serious contest throughout the tournament.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Rachael

England's batting look fine. Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood are a fair match for DeVilliers, Gibbs and Kallis. In any other recent season, Flintoff has looked a match for Pollock. Players like Vaughan and Strauss look more than a match for (say) Prince.

Not sure what to make of that.

Whatever media I used to watch the World Cup suggested to me that each of the South Africans mentioned is far better at their job than their english counterpart. Bell has got nowhere near De Villiers and Kallis is second only to Hayden in the runscoring and well above Pietersen and Collingwood. The difference in class is obvious by checking the stats and in the flesh and in print.

Agreed that Strauss is a match for Prince but Vaughan is no match for anyone. Freddie has just had a bad time.

[Younis Khan #1]

How can England's batting look fine? - The top order is beyond woeful! Pietersen and Collingwood is all england have!

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

As for England's batting... the start was sensible enough, appropriate to the circumstances ...

I can't agree. I'm prepared to give credit to South Africa - they played well - but crucially they (and everyone else in this championship) have recognised what Fletcher, Vaughan, Bell and all their colleagues have not: in 2007 one day cricket you cannot wait until 2.2 overs have been bowled to get on the board. Twenty years ago maybe you could; of course you still can in test cricket. But the ODI format, whether we like it or not, and everyone here knows it is not my favourite format, demands a different approach in the 21st century.

Take a quick look at the scoring comparisons over by over and there is no way to say that England read the game well, even allowing for the fact that they chose to bat first and might have regretted it from the moment they went out to open:

5 overs: England 5-0; South Africa 44-0
10 overs: England 28-1; South Africa 85-1
15 overs: England 47-2; South Africa 116-1
20 overs: England 64-3; South Africa 157-1 and off to the pub.

Even late in the innings between the 30th and 40th overs England only managed to add 30 runs. I know they lost five wickets in that time, but what do they want for that? Sympathy?

There's no getting around this from where I sit: the performance was awful all round, and every single one of the players carries his share of the can. As I said in the match thread, I did not see a single ball bowled by an England player which could be classed as good; there was not a single innings played by England which could be considered world class; and the strategic decision - one has to assume that it was that - to dig in and defend wickets was the most ill-considered I've seen on a cricket pitch since the last time someone gave me a bat. Which, for the record, was about 30 years ago.

Indefensible, I'm afraid.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I can't agree. I'm prepared to give credit to South Africa - they played well - but crucially they (and everyone else in this championship) have recognised what Fletcher, Vaughan, Bell and all their colleagues have not: in 2007 one day cricket you cannot wait until 2.2 overs have been bowled to get on the board.

Here's Hayden's start in his 158-run innings earlier in this tournament.....

Filtered commentary - Australia innings - ML Hayden 
 
0.2 Powell to Hayden, no run, good length outside off stump, he gets half forward and drives and gets an inside-edge to square leg  
0.3 Powell to Hayden, no run, good length outside off stump, defended towards point  
0.4 Powell to Hayden, no run, good stuff, short of a length with some good purchase off the deck, Hayden stands rooted and decides to leave it on length, and it deviates over the top of middle stump  
0.5 Powell to Hayden, no run, overpitched outside off stump, he leans into his drive but cant beat Samuels at cover  
0.6 Powell to Hayden, no run, good length outside off stump, he gets forward and drives back down the track, mid-off moves quickly and gets to it  
Australia 1/0   ML Hayden 0* (5b) 
 
2.1 Powell to Hayden, no run, good length delivery quite outside off stump and Hayden just shoulders arms to it  
2.2 Powell to Hayden, no run, bends his back into this one, a back of a length, quicker delivery outside off to stump to which Hayden again shoulders arms  
2.3 Powell to Hayden, no run, similar length and carry but much closer to off stump, a confident Hayden shoulders arms once more  
2.4 Powell to Hayden, no run, back of a length on off stump, Hayden gets up and defends it back to Powell, who's bowling well here  
2.5 Powell to Hayden, no run, back of a length on middle and leg this time, Hayden has no option but to defend it back to the bowler  
2.6 Powell to Hayden, no run, back of a length outside off stump, left alone  
Australia 7/0   ML Hayden 0* (11b) 
 
3.2 Taylor to Hayden, no run, good length well outside off stump, Hayden thinks about driving it and ends up loosely chasing it to get beaten  
3.3 Taylor to Hayden, no run, beaten by a slower one that swings away from off stump, Hayden stands rooted and just wafts at it, very close to getting an edge  
3.4 Taylor to Hayden, no run, tighter line this time, good length on the stumps, Hayden jams bat and pad together and defends back to Taylor  
3.5 Taylor to Hayden, no run, good length just outside off stump, Hayden stands and defends to the offside  
3.6 Taylor to Hayden, no run, back of a length outside off stump, now he squeezes it to the off side and Bravo moves quickly from short extra cover to field it, and Hayden still remains on 0  
Australia 10/0   ML Hayden 0* (16b) 
 
5.1 Taylor to Hayden, no run, good length outside off stump, Hayden gets forward and drives nicely down the ground to mid-off  
5.2 Taylor to Hayden, 1 wide, another bad ball down leg stump, just drifting too far and thats called wide  
5.2 Taylor to Hayden, 1 run, short of a length outside off stump, just tapped wide of point and Hayden gets off a duck  
5.6 Taylor to Hayden, no run, slower delivery angled across off stump, stays low too as Hayden flashes at it and misses  
Australia 23/1   ML Hayden 1* (19b)

There's nothing wrong with being patient... and it's just one of those things that in the case of Bell and Vaughan the signs of getting "in" were followed by getting out rather than going on to a big score.

Commentary here

ps. England will return home knowing that they were able to mix it with the best on 3 occasions out of 4... and that mixing it consistently with the likes of Aus, SL, NZ and SA is currently beyond most teams - not just WI, PAk and Ind, but also those self-same top teams!

[Occasional Fan]

Fair comment - but look at the team scores as well. At least Hayden had someone with him who was carrying him through the first few overs before he went on to make more runs than the whole England line up could muster yesterday. The problem England had may have been exacerbated by the fact that both openers were looking for 157 each, I guess. I still think, if the board is not ticking over quite nicely from the off, the team batting first is just digging itself into an ever deeper hole. It was clear that the game was over yesterday four overs into the RSA innings - after Mahmood had been smashed for 14 off each of his first two, and Anderson had contributed another nine to the cause. In the same period South Africa had bowled two maidens and Bell had played two scoring strokes; Vaughan had faced ten balls without scoring. You can't win like that in this day and age.

[Rachael]

Barry Richards thought 225 would have been a good total on that pitch. He made that call right at the outset and stuck to that judgement pretty much right through. Getting there was always going to be nervy... but needed a big score from someone.

The SA reply is no basis for comparison: the SA batsmen could play with complete freedom in the knowledge that the target was small and the SA batting was long - had the SA batsmen batted first I suspect we'd have seen the same sort of start that England managed (well, untill Sajid conceded 17 in one over to relieve all the pressure).

If you want one key area of difference though, it is this: England's batsmen play with a terrible burden of expectation whereas the SA do not. England's top order know that only the first 4 have the technique to cope with the moving ball and quality slow bowling.... and labour in fear of a mini-collapse.

This is not new: England laboured under the same fear in the Hussain era... and a concern than 4 out meant all out clearly impacted on Test performances as recently as 2004, when Hussain, Butcher and Thorpe batted in Tests with clear concern that the tail started at 6.

SA have no such concerns: the depth of their batting is frankly astonishing!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Mike

This is basically an admission that they chose the wrong option to bat first after winning the toss. Presumably it didn't take them long to realize that and many wickets were given away through sheer frustration at the pedestrian run-rate.

That sums it up, but individuals can be blamed.

It was obvious that batting first was the wrong decision, IMO there was a preconceived plan to bat first - no matter what.

The blame lies with the captain and coach - and any others involved in decision making.

Another point that is IMO obvious - England are not a good enough batting team to ever bat first, this batting side will never score enough runs to put pressure on a side.

To score just 5 runs in the first 5 overs was a bad strategy, England should have come out guns blazing, they had nothing to lose.

And far to much was put on the shoulders of Bopora, as though he alone could have made the difference.

I wonder had Vaughan not dropped Loye to play himself despite not having played except in bits for 12 months, would England have been in the World Cup semi finals?.

Well England captained by Flintoff, with Loye and Joyce opening in Australia a month or so ago, won the one day competition.

England need to get rid on Central Contracts, and use Specialised one day players for one day matches, under a different coach, captain and selectors - then England might improve.