A few thoughts in the wake up of the latest shambles...

How many times have we said that recently? The first 5-0 Ashes defeat for over 80 years? Failing to win a live game against a major Test-playing nation at the World Cup? Losing at home to India? Getting bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka? Being timidity personified in Hamilton against an admirable but not overly threatening attack, against whom England batted for 173 overs, but scored at a soporofic two-an-over, and then subsiding pathetically in the second innings for 110? Coming on the back of New Zealand being decimated by the IPl and ICL, to whom they essentialy lost half their side including their most valuable player, Shane Bond, that would take some beating.

And yet England have managed it. Scrapping over the follow-on target against the Kiwis at Old Trafford was just about as depressing as it comes. Dan Vettori has bowled with mesmerising guile (much better in fact, than he bowled in New Zealand), while Ian O'Brien has been fantastic. But England have been diffident and pathetic, showing no inclination to hit bowlers off their rhythm, allowing themselves to be trapped in their crease meekly, barely able to hit a run and just wait for their inevitable dismissals. If New Zealand have been fantastic, it is in large part because they have been allowed to be.

With the ball, England were far too loose, once more unable to exploit fairly helpful conditions. The bowlers seem incapable of thinking on their feet. While Ross Taylor played a phenomenal innings, testament to his rare talent, England totally lacked discipline or skill. James Anderson is far too erratic for Test cricket, and must immediately be dispensed with. Monty Panesar's downward curve continues; he is symptomatic of England's struggles when the opposition do something unexpected.

A damning indictement of this side is they have not learned from their feebleness in Hamilton, and have repeated all the same mistakes. The batting was abject once more. It is an oft-quoted statistic that all the top six average over 40, but those averages have been in decline for some time. Furthermore, the averages are boosted both by feasting on minnows and today's generally easier batting conditions. 40 is clearly no longer the mark of a top-class Test batsman. The batting lineup seems fundamentally flawed, and rejigging the pack cannot disguise it. Men of skill and desire, such as Owais Shah and Rob Key (and, given the desperation of the situation and the need to win the next game, rather than plan for some mythical date in the future, perhaps even Mark Ramprakash or his captain Mark Butcher, enjoying the purplest of patches), should be brought in, not just for the quality they possess but for the message it would send. The decision to drop Andrew Strauss and simultaneously hand him a new central contract was a half-hearted signal at best; and he got back in without making a run.

The skipper led by example, eeking out an agonising 133-ball 30. He often talks of helping his players "express themselves"; yet he himself was patently incapable of doing that. Ian Bell's innings surprised no one - a painstaking start followed by a somewhat half-hearted waft outside offstump. Paul Collingwood, for the second consecutive innings, looked out of his depth. He maximises his talent, certainly, but is painfully out-of-form - he has not passed 6 in six innings this season - and, ultimately, is simply perhaps not good enough at Test level. The most depressing innings, however, was played by England's best batsman.

Kevin Pietersen has gradually gone from being a maverick, and a genius capable of decimating the bowling with his idiosyncratic brand of fearlessnes, into a man seemingly lacking faith in his own ability. The transformation was inevitable in some respects (as I have discussed before), and is not without its benefits. Maturity has brought some positive aspects, of course, but it is grim watching the contrast between him and Taylor, surely no more talented, on the same pitch in the same match.

This is, at last in part, an indictement of the England set-up. Are players so well-rewarded, that they are so desperate to cling onto their places that they are paralysed by fear? The culture appears to gradually suck the individuality out of players; they are spoon-fed by legions of support staff, and subsequently have lost the ability to think for themselves. This extends even to the captain and coach, who refrain from indulging in horses-for-courses of any sort - the merits of which were reaffirmed by O'Brien's sterling endeavours here. The stability of central contracts has clearly gone way too far: it appears easier to get into the side than out of it. What to do? Sack the lot of 'em? England need a shakeup of sorts, even if it has the whiff of '90s short-termism about it.

__________________
third-umpire.com

Couldn't disagree more, and had already noted the following in another thread...

When Australia destroyed England at Lords at the start of the 2005 Ashes, the four bowlers had an average of 85 Tests under their belt. England's most experienced four bowlers had an average of 42 Tests under their belt.

In this Test... Monty's the veteran with 27 Tests... and he's a kid who's still learning his craft. Anderson's the seam-bowling veteran with 23 tests (and let's face it, he's rarely shouldered a significant workload in most of those: after years of being hidden away he's racked up an average of fewer than 17 overs per innings). Fletcher's idiocy means that Sidebottom has racked up just 14 Tests: even playing ahead of Mahmood and Plunkett would have brought him up to over 30 tests, and he really ought to be on 40+ by now). As it is, Broad is catching up fast with a whole 4 Tests to his name.

Average Test experience? 17 caps.

We tend to overlook the inexperience of the batting as well. India's Top order when England last played them included Dravid (112 caps), Ganguly (96 caps), Laxman (83 caps) Tendulkar (140 caps): the four most experienced players had an average of 108 caps to their name... and the other trio were hardly novices.

England's line up? Vaughan knows what he's doing (77 caps). Strauss is getting there (48 caps). The other four have fewer caps BETWEEN them than Tendulkar brought to the party: none of them have 40 caps! On top of that, the side as a gloveman (if we can flatter him with that title: slip catcher with mitts might be more appropriate) who's a complete novice at international level.

We obviously look ahead to the 2009 Ashes as the next really big challenge... but that's in part because it's going to take that long to get this current team the experience needed to really compete at the highest level. Finding a winning habit en-route would be helpful... but NZ are contesting this series very strongly, and SA will probably start their tour as favourites - so expecting the home side to just cruise to victory against either strikes me as foolhardy.

ps. How long did it take Fletcher to build a reliable attack after losing Caddick, Gough and Craig White? It didn't happen overnight!

What England need is a change at the top.

The coach and selector need to go! For a start they are out of touch with the modern game and don't share their captains beliefs.

Vaughan on the Old Trafford wicket " You cant just trundle in and bowl at 82mph on this wicket". So what do the coaching staff do? They deny him Tremlett whom he wanted in the team and pick Broad who trundled in at 82mph and didn't take a wicket in the match (and never looked like taking a wicket).

Vaughan wants his batsman to "express themselves" but Moores wants them to bat slower than Boycott on a slow day.

Vaughan wants 5 bowlers but the coaching staff want 4.

And so on.....

Baring in mind Vaughan beliefs / tactics have proved themselves at test level. Moores have shown to be just about successful against the worst teams at test level.

__________________
Mark.

Vaughan's love of out and out pace is questionable: Fletcher had that obsession... but I'm not sure Vaughan ever shared it. That's not to say he'd turn his nose up at the prospect of Flintoff being fit for the SA series... or at a return for the seemingly resurgent Simon Jones... but he always did have more regard than Fletcher (for instance) for the dependability of Hoggard over the greater penetration of Anderson... and (aside from the gloveman matter, where I just don't see Mustard / Read / Foster getting in) I still have high hopes for his partnership with Moores / Miller.

On your other point... Vaughan's thinking on 4 and 5 men attacks has (by his own admission) shifted: he's now fully behind the idea of Flintoff returning... but as part of a 4 man attack. For all his talk of players "expressing themselves" he's always had that Gower-like determination to make the other team really work for and earn anything they get: he's always seemed to me to accept that modern cricket is won by perspiration more often than by inspiration: he'll gladly take the wins that come through inspirational performances... but he hates the initiative being conceded by straining too hard to go beyond just building pressure.

Bottom line: senior players (incl. Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood and Sidebottom) are being backed to return to form, good long term prospects are being invested in (incl. Cook, Bell, Broad and - in their view if not in mine - Ambrose and Anderson), and no-one is really battering down the door to demand the place of anyone in the current XI.

Agree whole-heartedly; the top of the management, the top of the captaincy and the top of the order

Funny how it was Vaughan's own innings of 30 runs in 133 ball's at a cracking pace of 10 runs an over that was the most definitive example of this slow pace.

They did in 2004 and 2005. But since returning from injury in 2007 they have for the most part resembled an ageing legend struggling with his batting and struggling with his captaincy and leadership.

It looks like he is just holding on, and not much more. Doing just enough to hang in there, but a long way short of the guy who was able to take on the cricketing world on the front foot in 2004 & 2005.

I think Vaughan for the good of English cricket should quit. I think England and him have reached a fork in the road.

Is it?? He's always wanted Quick bowlers in the team. Last summer it was Vaughan who wanted (and got) Tremlett selected over Broad due to Broads lack of pace. Vaughan wanted Tremlett selected for this game for his extra pace.

Thats true, but only because Vaughan wanted to have Hoggard plug away into the wind while his fast men pounded in from the other. And that came about because at the time - 2003ish he didn't trust Simon Jones and Flintoff was beginning to transform himself from stock bowler to strike bowler.

Thats just not correct. Vaughan likes to play attacking cricket with both bat and ball. Vaughan preferred formula in the field is to attack with fast men bowling a lot of short stuff into the rib cage with also full reverse swinging bowling with attacking fields. He isn't bothered if England concede at 4 an over as long as they are penetrative and taking wickets. In this match witness they way Vaughan got Anderson to bowl. Vaughan instructed him to bowl fast and short. Anderson went for some runs but took wickets and shook the NZ batsmen up. Vaughan couldn't have cared less about the runs that were given away.England were taking wickets and causing problems. What he missed was another tall fast bowler attacking from the other end. What did concern him was the lack of penetration from Broad....

__________________
Mark.

You're probably right, but what have you heard that suggests Vaughan wanted Tremlett over Broad? I agree Broad's not very penetrative yet, and he needs some more pace, but I think consistency in selection is a good thing. If Broad doesn't look the goods for the next Test, then drop him for the South Africa tests, but I think a decent series in New Zealand and a good first Test should buy anyone a little time.

Well that doesn't seem to apply to spin bowling- all the commentators agreed that he set a very defensive field to Panesar this Test, and I noticed the same thing in New Zealand (eg. having a deep point for the long hop in his first over). Also, I don't approve at all of this practice of sending in a night-watchman. It rarely comes off, and if they survive the night they just become a sacrificial lamb next morning. At any rate, it's certainly the most defensive move a cpatain can make IMO.

Having friends who are journos certainly helps. I'll say no more than that

I still don't think Vaughan is used to thinking of a spinner in attacking terms. Giles was always used to slow the scoring down and quite often Monty only comes on when the seamers are bowling ****!. At the moment Monty is probably our most attacking bowler.

__________________
Mark.

Tremlett was the logical player to call up for this Test as the talk before the match (misguided as it happens) was of a pitch with trampoline bounce. I'd have played him... but surely the man to make way would have been Anderson rather than Broad.

Vaughan's view of Anderson has been stated very clearly by his actions as captain: he clearly doesn't trust the guy. I'm sure I read this morning that Anderson got just 12 overs out of the first 70-odd on day one... and others have noted that Vaughan treated Broad as his Flintoff-like "Go To" bowler when McCullum went on the rampage at Lords.

My impressions is that Vaughan rather likes Broad's Flintoffesque ability to bowl a back of a length "heavy ball" that gives the bruiser-batsmen little scope for opening their shoulders... and as Broad was bowling at up to 88 mph at Lords (compared with Anderson's 88.9mph)... you concerns about his pace strike me as a little curious.

There was still good bounce and carry in the pitch. It was surprisingly a bit drier than expected. Unusual for Manchester.


His average was about 83mph and only a couple hit the high 80's. In this match Broads also been at 82mph. The thing with Broad is that if he bowls a fraction too short his lack of pace will be exposed and he'll go for runs.

__________________
Mark.