Cricket XXII - A Cook's Tour

[ljkeane]

I take your point that it's not the most experienced line up ever but while Kohli, Pujara and Vijay aren't massively experienced they do all have around 20 tests under their belts so I wouldn't call them rookies either. Dhawan certainly is a rookie but he got a hundred so I'm not sure his inexperience was too much of a burden. I think it's fair to say it was a pretty good bowling performance given the batting talent India have available.

Anyway overall it was a good test match and I'm looking forward to the next test now.

[Consigliere]

Only 3 more days before the highly anticipated test series with the Aussies. Think i'm gonna call in sick and head down to Supersport Park. The Proteas will prove to be a much sterner test than the English. SA to win the series 2-1.

[Alester Florent]

Only 3 more days before the highly anticipated test series with the Aussies. Think i'm gonna call in sick and head down to Supersport Park. The Proteas will prove to be a much sterner test than the English. SA to win the series 2-1.

You can't rely on anything these days. England disintegrated faster than anyone would have expected, and South Africa are playing without Kallis for the first time since about 1970 or something.

[Stubby]

Only 3 more days before the highly anticipated test series with the Aussies. Think i'm gonna call in sick and head down to Supersport Park. The Proteas will prove to be a much sterner test than the English. SA to win the series 2-1.

You can't rely on anything these days. England disintegrated faster than anyone would have expected, and South Africa are playing without Kallis for the first time since about 1970 or something.

The critical step for Australia to take will be their first innings performances. In every test this Australian summer Australia were 5 for fuck all. The England bowlers let them off the hook. Somehow I doubt that the South African attack will be as negligent or forgiving.

[Alester Florent]

My worry with South Africa is their strength in depth, at least when it comes to bowling. With Kallis out of the picture, if Steyn gets injured (highly possible given his record) they're relying on Philander and Morkel to carry the attack with journeymen third seamers. Not that Philander or Morkel are in any way shabby bowlers, but Anderson and Broad are (or were until this latest tour) considered of similar class and the England attack failed to make significant headway. South Africa also have several bits-and-pieces players and are slightly prone to mini-collapses in the batting, although unlike England they should have enough experience in the batting order to recover from that. (Then again, going into the Ashes England also had on paper a highly experienced top quality middle order with the sole exception of the #6). South Africa also lack a (proven) top quality spinner.

But that's all doomsaying, and I thoroughly expect SA to wipe the floor with the Aussies. Things are a bit topsy-turvy at the moment though. I hadn't checked until today, but I've just discovered that, in addition to leading the Test series, New Zealand hammered India in the ODIs 4-0 and India are yet to win a match of any kind on this tour.

[The Winged Shadow]

India is once again dissapointing away from home. They really need to improve that. They've easily got some of the best batting talent in the world, and i'm sure after a few more away tours the young guns will get better with experience.

Can't wait for the SA tour to get going. Hoping for some awesome test matches. I hear Johnson is growing the mo back, and we all know its all about the mo!

[Jeor]

Australia's hopes lie mainly with Johnson, clearly the quickest of all our seamers. If he bowls like he did against England, we might have a chance, but if his level is anything less, our batting isn't strong enough to keep us in the game.

I say 2-1 or 2-0 South Africa.

[Alex.]

This is a really excellent piece by Dave Tickner on the ECB/Cook/Pietersen thing. Makes some thought provoking points about our erstwhile captain and the ECB especially:

When not busy seizing control of the ICC with its Indian and Australian co-conspirators, the ECB is currently to be found desperately trying to regain control of the increasingly grubby and unedifying Kevin Pietersen story.

It's to be hoped they make a better job of running world cricket, but I wouldn't advise holding your breath.

On Sunday, barely 20 minutes after the latest Manchester United disaster ensured that KP would be little more than an afterthought in Monday's sports pages, the ECB decided to put out the fire altogether by pouring petrol on it in the form of another witless pronouncement that revealed far more about the ECB than it did about the crimes or otherwise of England's finest batsman.

The latest statement is a pathetic farce from start to finish. It would be funny but for the startling realisation that these people are actually in charge. Whatever side of the KP debate you sit on, there can be no doubt that the ECB have mismanaged his axing to an extent that would seem hopelessly and unrealistically far-fetched in The Thick Of It.

[Consigliere]

Word from the curator at Supersport Park is that it's "A strip with pace and bounce that will benefit the fast bowlers with a bit of moisture on the first morning." Its been raining here all weekend and it's currently overcast and a bit humid. I expect the ball to move around a bit particularly in the 1st session on day 1. SA are considering a four pronged pace attack with either Parnell, Kleinveldt or Mclaren alongside Philander, Steyn and Morkel.

[Consigliere]

You can't rely on anything these days. England disintegrated faster than anyone would have expected, and South Africa are playing without Kallis for the first time since about 1970 or something.

True. Although I don't expect SA to fall apart the way the English did. Kallis was magnificent and his retirement has definately left a bit of a hole in both the batting and bowling lineup. In saying that, SA are not a one man team and it took alot more than the Kallis factor to achieve and then maintain the No. 1 test ranking. Latest reports suggest that SA are considering dropping the spinner and opting for a four pronged pace attack with Dean Elgar as the specialist batsmen at No. 7.

[Sir Thursday]

This is a really excellent piece by Dave Tickner on the ECB/Cook/Pietersen thing. Makes some thought provoking points about our erstwhile captain and the ECB especially:

Sorry, but I couldn't make it more than half-way through that. It's a poorly written attack piece - it is possible to criticise the ECB without resorting to insulting them over and over again.

ST

[Alester Florent]

True. Although I don't expect SA to fall apart the way the English did. Kallis was magnificent and his retirement has definately left a bit of a hole in both the batting and bowling lineup. In saying that, SA are not a one man team and it took alot more than the Kallis factor to achieve and then maintain the No. 1 test ranking. Latest reports suggest that SA are considering dropping the spinner and opting for a four pronged pace attack with Dean Elgar as the specialist batsmen at No. 7.

That's probably not a terrible idea, although I think having a spinner in the squad is generally a good plan to bowl "stock" overs when the ball has deteriorated quickly and isn't doing much, so the fasties can have a rest. The great thing about Kallis was that he allowed SA to play with effectively twelve men; I guess the decision now is whether to strengthen the batting or the bowling. I tend to think bolstering the batting is the right choice there.

On the ECB thing, I'm getting increasingly tired of the KP circus: I guess this is what happens when there's no actual England cricket to watch. A lot of the commentators seem to have forgotten that the situation here wasn't that KP was thrown under the bus as a scapegoat for the Ashes; Flower was sacked first. Nor are we the public "owed" an explanation, which isn't to say one wouldn't be nice. I've read a lot of frothing outrage about this, usually along the lines of "Cook is a mediocre captain and KP is the greatest cricketing superstar since Victor Trumper and what's happening here isn't fair."

I've also read a few more considered pieces, usually from ex-cricketers. Ed Smith suggested that the reason the ECB haven't given full disclosure on their reasoning is because to do so would severely damage Pietersen's reputation. Martin Crowe observed that KP's knee seemed to be giving him serious problems and his Test career was probably almost over anyway. Even Boycott, who has always been one of KP's biggest supporters, has equivocated on the part of the ECB, saying that KP was too much of an individual and not a team player and after a while you have to draw a line (which demonstrates either remarkable growth as a human being on his part or an astonishing lack of introspection, but anyway).

The idea that Cook is the establishment man and KP is the maverick rebel who gets results or something maybe has a grain of truth to it. But the KP-as-last-DJ narrative disguises that this is also a player who has fallen out with almost every club he's ever played for, who responded to being made national captain by demanding the sacking of the coach, who backstabbed his own captain and pushed him into what was almost certainly a premature retirement. A player who has played matchwinning innings, no doubt, but one who has pissed away his wicket with irresponsible strokes on far more occasions and has been breathtakingly unapologetic when that's happened, a player who has become much less reliable as time has gone on, rather than moreso, and has demanded increasingly special treatment as his career has gone on, a man who counts Piers Morgan among his best mates; moreover, he's a player who's going to be on the brink of 34 by the time England play their next Test and has a dicky knee.

It's starting to remind me of the last days of Flintoff, when the attempts to accommodate an increasingly unreliable player on the basis of past glories and public profile were causing more harm than good. I'm not saying I'm not at least a little sorry to see KP go, but I can completely understand why he has, ECB statement or no.

[williamjm]

Nor are we the public "owed" an explanation, which isn't to say one wouldn't be nice.

While this may technically be true, they would have to be hopelessly naive if they thought that their vaguely worded statements wouldn't set off a media firestorm. The English sports media can be obsessive about even the most trivial of non-stories, there was no possibility they weren't going to react this way to a genuine story.

In other news, Eoin Morgan has pulled out of the IPL auction to play the start of the County Championship instead which may be a consequence of England's sacking of KP, since there's now clearly a space in the batting line-up for an attacking middle-order player. I know he's had a mediocre Test career so far, but I still think he has potential if he can adapt his game to the longer form, it may not have been the greatest of achievements given the competition but he still looked the most comfortable of any England batsman in Australia.

[Jeor]

Given his assertive batting style it'd be interesting to see how Morgan goes if he were given a second chance in the Test team.

Mind you, he may be a bit like George Bailey. Good limited-overs batsman if the field is spread so you can play your eye in, but in Test matches where there aren't as many singles on offer he might find himself a bit more bogged down and find it hard to get going.

Re: the whole KP affair, from a cricketing point of view it doesn't make sense, but from a dressing room point of view there were clearly issues at play. Whatever has happened he's clearly not in the picture now and England have to replace him with an aggressive batsman. Having a lineup of Cook, Carberry, Root, Bell etc may accumulate some big runs every now and then but are too easily tamed by tight bowling.

[williamjm]

Whatever has happened he's clearly not in the picture now and England have to replace him with an aggressive batsman. Having a lineup of Cook, Carberry, Root, Bell etc may accumulate some big runs every now and then but are too easily tamed by tight bowling.

It's not just KP, Prior is a big loss as well in terms of counter-attacking aggression from number 7 in the batting line-up. Of course, he might still make a comeback, or if Buttler is his replacement then aggression shouldn't be a problem.

[Alester Florent]

I think Morgan and Bopara are worth another look. That said, I'd like to see Compton return at the top of the order. With Cook out of shape and Trott on indefinite leave the fabled steady grind of the England top order is looking remarkably shaky, and Compton has been the most reliable player in that position since Strauss. Carberry hasn't humiliated himself more than anyone else on the last tour, but hasn't inspired so much confidence that I'm particularly keen for him to stay. If England are really stuck for middle-order players they could try retaining Carberry and bringing Compton back, but that leaves the squad rather opener-heavy and none of them (apart from Cook) have the sort of record that makes it look like that's a gamble worth taking.

Lower in the order I think England need to return to some sort of type and stick with a player there for a series or two rather than chopping and changing. Ballance probably deserves another go but he hasn't really convinced me and I think Morgan and Bopara have more to offer.

I also think Bell should move up the order as a matter of urgency (I had felt for some time that he and KP should be swapped in any case). Whether he plays at #3 (where he arguably should really be) I don't know. In some ways it makes more sense to put Root at 3, as it's a good spot for spare openers and will help him learn his trade before a long-term move up to the opening partnership. On the other hand maybe that's a risk, and Bell should be put there. But I've never bought into this idea that you should automatically play your best batsman at #3, which a lot of commentators seem fixated on. It's a tricky position and not suitable for everyone; I don't think having your best batsman struggling there is really in anyone's best interest. Plenty of great batsmen have played at #4 or lower for much or all of their careers and probably been much more productive there than they would have been at #3. Then again... Bell has indicated he wants to play there and has met with some success - in his more recent incarnations - in that position so maybe that's the best place for him.

I envisage a batting order along the lines of:

1. Cook

2. Compton

3. Bell

4. Root

5. Morgan/Bopara

6. Stokes/Bresnan/Ballance

7. Buttler

8. Broad

9. Borthwick/Monty

10. Finn/whoever

11. Anderson

My worry would be that it might have the propensity to tail off remarkably quickly after the top order, but unless Bell or Root is bumped back down to lower-middle which creates its own set of problems, that can't really be helped.

I hope England decide to stick with Borthwick, and play him as sole spinner when they only want to play one. But England has never really trusted legspin (and offspin is more of an English speciality) so whether we'll see that I don't know. But other than Monty - who is a credible player but has various issues - the offspin well is running a bit dry at the moment and a good legspinner is a really valuable asset.

[Consigliere]

SA won the toss and chose to field. Australia 83\3 at lunch. SA slightly edging the 1st session but the match is finely balanced. Michael Clarke is the key wicket. If SA can pick him up early then I don't see them letting the Aussies off the hook like the English did.

[Hereward]

I think Morgan and Bopara are worth another look. That said, I'd like to see Compton return at the top of the order. With Cook out of shape and Trott on indefinite leave the fabled steady grind of the England top order is looking remarkably shaky, and Compton has been the most reliable player in that position since Strauss. Carberry hasn't humiliated himself more than anyone else on the last tour, but hasn't inspired so much confidence that I'm particularly keen for him to stay. If England are really stuck for middle-order players they could try retaining Carberry and bringing Compton back, but that leaves the squad rather opener-heavy and none of them (apart from Cook) have the sort of record that makes it look like that's a gamble worth taking.

Lower in the order I think England need to return to some sort of type and stick with a player there for a series or two rather than chopping and changing. Ballance probably deserves another go but he hasn't really convinced me and I think Morgan and Bopara have more to offer.

I also think Bell should move up the order as a matter of urgency (I had felt for some time that he and KP should be swapped in any case). Whether he plays at #3 (where he arguably should really be) I don't know. In some ways it makes more sense to put Root at 3, as it's a good spot for spare openers and will help him learn his trade before a long-term move up to the opening partnership. On the other hand maybe that's a risk, and Bell should be put there. But I've never bought into this idea that you should automatically play your best batsman at #3, which a lot of commentators seem fixated on. It's a tricky position and not suitable for everyone; I don't think having your best batsman struggling there is really in anyone's best interest. Plenty of great batsmen have played at #4 or lower for much or all of their careers and probably been much more productive there than they would have been at #3. Then again... Bell has indicated he wants to play there and has met with some success - in his more recent incarnations - in that position so maybe that's the best place for him.

I envisage a batting order along the lines of:

1. Cook

2. Compton

3. Bell

4. Root

5. Morgan/Bopara

6. Stokes/Bresnan/Ballance

7. Buttler

8. Broad

9. Borthwick/Monty

10. Finn/whoever

11. Anderson

My worry would be that it might have the propensity to tail off remarkably quickly after the top order, but unless Bell or Root is bumped back down to lower-middle which creates its own set of problems, that can't really be helped.

I hope England decide to stick with Borthwick, and play him as sole spinner when they only want to play one. But England has never really trusted legspin (and offspin is more of an English speciality) so whether we'll see that I don't know. But other than Monty - who is a credible player but has various issues - the offspin well is running a bit dry at the moment and a good legspinner is a really valuable asset.

I would definitely keep Stokes at 6, as we have to have a 5 man attack without Swann to take wickets and plug up an end. Much as I love Ravi for Essex, I don't believe he has the temperament for Test cricket when the pressure is on, so I'd persevere with Ballance at 5. Finn probably won't be back for a while, so I'd try Turner or Mills, possibly both, with Root doing the spin.

[Jeor]

Yep, Clarke's wicket is key. Interesting choice to bowl first from South Africa, but it may yet prove to be the right one. I don't see the lower order pulling off the same amount of runs we did against England. Johnson might get some lower order runs against this attack, but the likes of Siddle, Harris and Lyon will be knocked over much quicker than in the Ashes.

[The Winged Shadow]

Aussies are in a bit of a trouble unless the lower order performs again.