England learn nothing new
England learned nothing new from their . It was already common knowledge that when Kevin Pietersen comes off, they have an excellent chance.
Pietersen, coming in at number five, demonstrated hard-nosed resilience to keep England in the game after he was culpable in the run out of Ian Bell and then produced some nonchalant brilliance to guide his team home.
When he has a lean time - and this was his first half-century in nine one-day innings - it is easy to forget the extent of his talent.
But it is England’s reliance on Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff and Marcus Trescothick that makes them vulnerable in the one-day game. When they fail, there is not a sufficiently strong core to the team to compensate.
England needed this win after two wretched performances. They also needed Flintoff back in action with the ball and although his five overs, delivered in two spells, were largely unthreatening, that was irrelevant compared to the fact that he bowled at all.
He came in off his normal run and touched 87 mph with one delivery, but it was more of an easing in than a fiery return.
appears bemused, if not mildly frustrated, by persistent media questions about the state of his ankle. It is as if there is no doubt in his mind that he will be fully fit for Brisbane and so far so good, he reported no reaction afterwards.
West Indies lacked the intensity shown in their first two matches. They failed to take full advantage of their superb start and there was no flamboyant acceleration against some mixed England bowling.
Jon Lewis, replacing Steve Harmison, bowled his overs unchanged and provided sufficient evidence for his inclusion at the start of the tournament. Duncan Fletcher came here with preconceptions about Lewis’ ability to be effective in the sub-continent, but the pitches have confounded him.
Jamie Dalrymple had the confidence to flight the ball and was unfortunate not to take a wicket. The rest was ordinary.
Sajid Mahmood has dismissed Adam Gilchrist, Ricky Ponting, Ramnaresh Sarwan and Brian Lara in this tournament and somewhere amongst the wides and bad balls is a talented bowler.
James Anderson, meanwhile, was flogged in his second spell and Dwayne Bravo had the measure of Michael Yardy’s peculiar brand of slow bowling.
The main benefit England have gained from their time in India is that most of the Ashes squad have had a work-out.
When they arrive in Australia, England only have seven days in the middle before the begins. There is a danger with modern tours that players will be undercooked going into the first Test of the series.
That should not be the case with the players who have been out here in India.
Well said Simon. The overreliance on four players (Flintoff, Pietersen, Strauss, Harmison and Trescothick) and the wasteful underutlisation of another two (Collingwood and Lewis) is a travesty that is caused by leadership that simply just don't get it.
That and leaving someone else to finish your over for the hell of it (resulting in that other person getting a golden duck that is COMPLETELY not their fault) is irresponsible and uncaptainlike.
Complain about this postPerhaps a little harsh in some senses and not harsh enough in others.
First and foremost, England have a win and, however much the West Indies had relaxed, in a situation where the wheels could have come off the wagon completely, first with two opposition batsmen getting centuries and then with the run rate soaring and wickets tumbling, the side did not panic. Most of us will settle for that.
Jon Lewis supplied the steadiness that we wanted to see. Once more he stifled good batsmen. Had he played against India we would have won. Had he played against Australia we would at least have made them fight harder.
Ian Bell and Andrew Strauss look in good knick. For the second game running (a luxury!) they have scored freely at the head of the innings.
The worry is what comes behind. Andrew Flintoff is wasted at 3. He is just out of place. Michael Yardy has now aggregated just 30 runs in 5 ODIs. He's been unlucky. He's had rough decisions. But a top score of 12* tells its own story. He just does not seem to radiate confidence: today he was pushing the ball around for singles and one dared to hope, but once again he missed out. He's playing mainly as a bowler right now. And Chris Read has now scored just 61 runs in 8 ODIs since his return and has not looked like getting runs. He's also making the sort of mistakes behind the stumps that Geraint Jones got pilloried for. If you can't stomach a return to Geraint Jones, for heavens sake call up Jon Batty for the ODIs in Australia and the World Cup.
England are effectively carrying three of the top seven every time they bat.
With Marcus Trescothick back, Bell can go down to 3, Andrew Flintoff can go back to 6 and with Batty at 7 or 8 and with Collingwood, Pietersen and Dalrymple mixing flair and grit, England will bat down to 8 and should have no problem scoring runs.
Anderson and Lewis taking wickets (Jimmy Anderson had an off-day today, but was a revelation in the first two games) and keeping things tight and Andrew Flintoff bowling again means that Sajid Mahmood can be given his head a bit more; he looks like he could just be this winter's surprise package in the Ashes.
In other words, England could just surprise a few people in the World Cup because the elements are there.
Complain about this postKP battled through a rough start and looked good at the end. perhaps in the ashes he should stick at 5 and the team should read:
tres, strauss, cook, bell, kp, fred, read, mahmood, harmison, hoggard, monty.
paul franks
Complain about this postWhy do England persist in picking "bits and pieces" players? We went into this game with only 4 batsmen. With the players available, we can pick 3 bowlers, a wicket keeper, Flintoff (when fully fit) and make Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood bowl the other 10. This means we can have 6 specialist batsmen in the side.
Complain about this postGood performance today by a few senior players, but it cant gloss over what has been a disappointing tournament. England's plan has been to cure their one day problems by continuously blooding new younger players who make the team more complete. In this effort we seem to have overlooked the fact that we need match winners. Pietersen played as we all know he can today and won the game for England. Strauss's form has also been pleasing, as well as Bell's continued improvement. However in my opinion there is a broad consensus that once the first English wicket goes, there isn't much faith that we are going to get anything much from our middle-order. Twentys and thirty's don't win matches, see Sri Lanka's performance vs Pakistan in this competition. Where are our wicket taking bowlers and middle order century makers? The side is still torn between an all round ODI side, and just a team of our best players. We need to decided on one or the other.
Just want to add a congratulations to Chris Gayle and Dwayne Bravo for making the first hundreds of the tournament proper. Well done guys!
Complain about this postIt is apparent that England do not treat the One Day Game with enough seriousness, as proffesional sportsmen (making their living from it), I find that strange. They should want to win everything!They are entertainers, that is where the money comes from!
They are always on stage! The pool of players should be even bigger, so that 'tired/out of form players can be rested, not dropped. Class will always show through. It is a different game now, with all the different game formats. In the past players were in fear of their of their future if they had a few bad games. With 'Pool and Contract players' they will know they are in there, unless they are not offered a new contract. I fear for Chris Read and he fears for himself, it is evident in his batting. Everyone knows he is the best wicket keeper, but he had improved his batting at county level, but he is so nervous of batting in the international arena, his batting is typical of nervousness at this level. He needs permanent (at international level) endorsement to bolster his confidence, he is obviously a very sensitive man, his batting at this level smacks of lack of confidence. It is a management duty to get the best out of everyone. It is not football, there is not as much money in it, but it is more demanding. At worst football requires, for the top teams, 2/3 90 minute matches each week. Cricket requires far more concentrated physical and emotional commitment for far longer for far less money. Management and captaincy is crucial. Freddie can be a Superstar, however he just does not have the subtleties of Micheal Vaughn, Mike Brearley or Strauss. He should be allowed to do what he loves best, without the pressure of Captaincy, he also needs to realise this to gain maximum satisfaction - and success from 'The Best Game in the World'
Cricket IS the 'Beautiful Game', no other comes close. I have always called it 'chess on a green field'.
Complain about this postToday England did fantasitic job I enjoyed it. But my worries are middle order batsmen.
1. Flintoff has to learn lot of things from Kevin Peterson the way he played. why Flintoff could not handle the pressue like Kevin? If all batsmen can do that England has very good chance in World cup.
2. Ashley Giles should not play Ashes he just back from injuries after very long break, no one knows about his form, same for Michel Vaughan. England should follow the selection policy of Austraila..they never worry about the big names..they allow anyone to play in the team if they are in good form.
3. Really disapointing captaincy gone to Flintoff, Andrew Strauss should be a Engalnd Captain, until Vaughan come back to the team after fully fit and good form.
Complain about this postthe ashes excuses have begun ! Aussies 3 England 1, Draws- 1
Complain about this postThe sooner the one day side is selected with 5 batsman and Flintoff and 4 ist line bowlers and a weekeeper then the more solid it will become bits and pieces players never won anything and going to the world cup with Yardy as a batter/bowler is suicide Dalrymple is a fair player and could hold is place but the test side should provide the majority of the one day team.
Complain about this postMichael Yardy proved to be useless with the bat and ball, and was no good in the field either. Besides, his dismissal against the West Indies proves he has no luck either. Definitely no place in the England team in my book.
Complain about this postIt remains something of a mystery as to why Englands clearly talented cricketers fail consistantly at the highest level. The mental toughness was there in the last home ashes series, when we had a settled side with no injuries. The young players coming through have enough ability but must have the right mental approach and desire to be at the very top. We too often seem to have just come along for the ride! Not something you can level at the Australians or South Africans even when they play poorly.
Complain about this postThe one-day day game bears a diminishing relationship to the test game (which in itself bears little relation to the tests of 20 or 30 years ago!). Therefore the specialists of the short game have difficulty in the long game and vice versa. An interesting (but not wholly accurate) analogy exists in the differences between rugby league and union. You don't get union players participating the league sport. They are, for all intents and purposes, separate sports. There is a similar situation in cricket. We should therefore treat them as separate entities with a different board of selectors for the one day game and test cricket. Of course there are exceptions. I couldn't imagine any form of the game without Flintoff, Pietersen, Trescothick or Vaughan who can play both forms of the game and on their day on most pitches, but aside from those players, we have very few 'all-rounders' who thrive in the 'thinking mans' game (test) as well as the slogging run-chase.
Complain about this postFor the new generation of players coming through the ranks, the selectors need to watch them and gear their training to one form of the game, not both, depending on their style and approach to the game.
Fred is such a boundless optimist that he would be confident about his fitness. He always is. Fletcher failed him and England by not advising him to use himself more sensibly at the Lord's Sri Lanka Test this year. Fred bowled a ridiculous 68 overs in that match and basically aggravated beyond easy repair that dodgy ankle. The media is quite right to question Fred about his ankle - my worry is that he might not be listening to good advice.
Complain about this postNothing new? I think England have now at least got Bell and Strauss as a solid opening partnership if needed
Complain about this postSimon,
A valid point to a degree, but it's an equally valid point for other teams - take out three world-class players from any one-day side and they will struggle. I think you forget too easily that other teams are equally reliant on their best players - can you imagine India without Tendulkar, Dravid and Sehwag? Australia without Ponting, Symonds and Martyn?
You should celebrate the fact that Flintoff is getting back to fitness, Pietersen has hit some form and Trescothick will be back, but I suppose that doesn't make for good copy.
Complain about this posti agree. pietersen came off and it was spectacular but england are still a poor one day side. i'm sure this is because
Complain about this posta)all the focus appears to be on the test side
b)we don';t have the enough players of international class.
i worry for our bowling attack in particular in australia.
andererson has not got the consistency and control required. likewise mahmood. i fear get smashed by the aussies.
harmison is a confidence bowler. at the moment he looks to lack it.
flintoff will run in , but i can't see him taking a lot of wickets.
which leaves hoggard( he had a nightmare last time in australia) panesar and maybe plunkett. i think monty will be the best of our attack and will bowl a lot of overs. i hope to god he stays fit! giles for me would be a negative choice for the tests.
plunkett could be the best of the seamers if he is given a chance and can improve his control.
the batsmen are going to consistently have to get good totals, which i dont believe they will.
so i think the aussies look good for 3-0 series test win. basically i'd like england to put up a much better fight than they did last time under nasser hussain. i think they will achieve that.
steve, durham
After a woeful showing throughout the first two games of the ICC champions trophy England finally secured their first win of the tournament, ironically when it mattered least.
England's performances over the summer were a mixed bag, and after thoroughly putting a genuinely talented (if mercurial) Pakistan side to the sword in the tests, they struggled to a draw in the series.
England's record in ODIs over the last couple of years has been terrible and playing at home rarely makes any difference to this. What concerns me is that the flux in personnel that has been prevalent since the Ashes victory is the very thing that hurts this team. The inability to field a consistent line-up is a major blow as a settled and experienced side in ODIs is as important if not more important than in Tests. What needs to be emphasised is that to be a success in ODIs you do not have to be as talented as Test players. As a batsman you will only have to face 10 overs of the opposing teams best bowlers, and as a bowler, you are expected to get flogged around the pitch, so the ability to limit the opposing side to as few runs as possible is the key - not wickets (although the ability to take wickets is a real run reducer and it is this ability that sets apart the great and the good). Limiting the other side to as few scoring opportunities is brought about by bowling the right line and length, which is why Jon Lewis was preferred to Steve Harmison.
With the VB series and World Cup to look forward to I will lay out my thoughts as to England's chances:
Batting
England's batting has been on the whole very weak. The familiar middle order collapse has plagued the efforts of the team to post a strong total although there is a feeling that they may prefer chasing than batting first. What does strike me is that there is a plethora of batting talent in the side but fails to be harnessed in unison or on a consistent basis. Confidence must play a part in this, as will leadership. Sadly confidence, despite yesterday's win will not be strong and I fear that the first test in Brisbane will go to the Australians purely due to the fact that the best players are struggling for form. Secondly leadership, although strong with Flintoff, is nothing by comparison to Michael Vaughan. Flintoff strikes me as a lead by example captain, rather than the more cerebral Vaughan. In my opinion Andrew Strauss would have made a better captain but in reality it would be impossible for the selectors to choose anyone other than Freddie, as it is clear his popularity within the dressing room wins out; whereby selecting Strauss would suggest he would not have the team's full support in times of crisis.
Fielding
Since the Ashes I believe that the standard of England's fielding has been woeful, and yesterday's showing proved it again with misfields and dropped catches aplenty. There may be some link to the Captaincy again, Hussain and Vaughan were both captains that fielded at Mid-Off and I can remember at least 10 occasions where they made excellent catches, run-outs or saved certain boundaries. Freddie is an excellent slip fielder but his physique is not designed to be as agile as say Paul Collingwood, and it is this lack of fielding energy rubs off on the other fielders.
Bowling
Yesterday's performance concerns me no end. Jon Lewis was excellent with his control and was unlucky not to take a couple more wickets. However, I am concerned that his lack of genuine pace will make him come unstuck on other pitches. Unless he is selected for the test side, I would not be too concerned about this.
James Anderson mystifies me. Three or four years ago he was the next great saviour of English pace bowling, taking wickets aplenty in the World Cup and against South Africa in the following series in England. Since then he has seriously come off the boil. I bowl with an identical action to Anderson and I can understand the back problems he has had, as I have had exactly the same and they cannot help when trying to establish a natural rhythm. What is of greater concern is that the pace he bowls at consistently, he cannot afford to stray with his line. It is very natural for away swing bowlers to bowl to leg stump if the ball does not swing. However, if the ball is bowled on the right length this should not be too much of a problem. However, Anderson seems to be unable to bowl to a consistent length, always being too full or too short. One of his overs yesterday cost 18 runs - the product of bowling half volleys and long hops. No doubt he will get Christmas cards from Dwayne Bravo and Chris Gayle this year.
Jamie Dalrymple bowled excellently. He was fortunate to be bowling to Chris Gayle for most of his overs, a man with a fantastic eye but limited technique and reluctance to move his feet unless entirely necessary. However, his flight and guile were excellent, and if he can develop more turn allied with this then he could yet be an excellent spin option.
Sajid Mahmood is a frustrating cricketer. He will surely start all of the ODIs due to the fact that he can bat a bit. I can genuinely see that England will rely on his bowling in a similar way to Simon Jones in the next 12-18 months. There is an undoubted ability there, and he can take wickets in both forms of the game. Unfortunately this maturity will only come after he has endured the frustration of watching Australia pile on lots of runs with minimal effort. Once he learns control he will be exceptional.
Paul Collingwood is a most under-used bowler. Yesterday, it was shown that by bowling slower, it was easier to stop runs coming. Collingwood can bowl as fast as the high 70s mph but by bowling a tight line in the high 60s mph, he frustrated the Windies batsmen. I look forward to seeing him bowl more.
A quick note on Freddie's bowling - not a bad return. Good to see him bowling again and with the Ashes now approaching steadily it is an encouraging sight.
Finally a note for Michael Yardy. His performance yesterday was dreadful. Is he a spinner? Is he a medium pacer? Does he have an enormous hole in both hands? I can't answer these questions but I can ask this - should he play for England again? Probably not.
Complain about this postThe England mentality has always been a fairly orthodox one which is very suited to tests but can be a bit of a disadvantage for ODIs. We could, however, be at least an average team with better selection. What we have learnt from this trophy is that:
Harmy may as well rest when the ODIs are on in favour of Lewis.
Yardy and Dalyrmple are bits and pieces - and playing both is questionable. Giles or a quick like Broad should play instead of Yardy.
The runs success of Read's test comeback didn't mask the fact that he is vulnerable technically (essentially rooted on the back foot). Can't we pick Foster who is almost as good with the gloves and looks more technically proficient and able with the bat?
Eveyone says Cook is not an ODI player but the times he played against SL he scored quickly and looked secure. A much better squad player than Joyce.
Clarke is not an international allrounder - too poor with the bat. May as well have someone who has enough in one suit and a little in the other (soon Vaughan?)
Complain about this postMike D.
Some interesting and thoughtful comments. I'd definitely subscribe to most of them.
I think that the selectors are paying for their loyalty to Andrew Flintoff as captain. There is no question that he obtained a fantastic result in India when the Indian fans were deriding England in the most offensive manner ("we'd have have beaten the Ashes team 3-0, THIS side need not even bother turning up" was one comment that caught my eye), but the Sri Lanka Tests showed that when things are going wrong he is limited. It looked very much like Ian Botham captaining England in the Carribean in 1981: the solution to everything was for him to bowl more overs and try to lead from the front. It didn't work for Botham and only led to career-threatening injury and it has only shown limited success for Andrew Flintoff (W2 D2 L2). Andrew Flintoff has shown that his personal form does not suffer when captain (except possibly his batting in ODIs), but one suspects that he'll do better in Australia under Andrew Strauss, than trying to do everything. Andrew Strauss really did impress against Pakistan and showed a ruthless touch that would unsettle Australia (let's face it, Strauss handled the Oval crisis far more effectively than Inzamam).
Despite being a Gloucestershire supporter and a Jon Lewis fan I subscribe totally your views. He is a very effective bowler in ODIs, but I would be seriously worried if he took the new ball in a Test in Australia. However, it was the right decision to play him instead of Steve Harmison. Jimmy Anderson is a mystery. Last winter in India and in the first two matches in the Champions Trophy he looked back to his best. Yesterday we were back to buffet bowling. With Anderson on form he makes a potent reserve who would be far more effective in Australia than Lewis.
Sajid Mahmood is another small mystery. The howls of outrage that greeted Simon Jones's selection for the Carribean tour in 2004 ahead of Sajid Mahmood were quite something. At the time he looked hard done by, but his inconsistency when selected in Tests and ODIs has been extremely frustrating. He is an attacking bowler and if he can conquer his nerves and inconsistency one can really see him running through the Australians at some point. However, if Sajid Mahmood and Steve Harmison have a bad day together, one can imagine the Australians scoring 400+ in a day.
I would tend to agree with you that Michael Yardy may have played his last game for England. He had a nightmare tour of the Carribean with England "A" last winter. Yesterday, a stronger personality would have at least queried the catch (although the fielder should perhaps have realised that it was possibly not clean). I have not seen Yardy bowl apart from his 5-for against Bangladesh last summer, but he seems to have limited weapons. The best that can be said for that is that he was somewhat lucky that the Bangladeshi's played him poorly. In fact, more like they were in suicide mode: the line and length of the wicket-taking balls was, to put it mildly, variable. Yardy is only an occasional bowler for Sussex in First Class and limited-overs matches (he averages less than 4 overs per match in limited overs games), yet suddenly we seem to want him to take on the likes of Tendulkar and Ponting.
In contrast, although his batting has been a massive disappointment in India, Jamie Dalrymple has impressed. He has been reliable, if not threatening with the ball and in the matches that England has lost (rather a lot), has shown himself to be solid, reliable and sensible with a batting average that should embarrass some of his teammates.
I still think that England are close to a goodish, if not brilliant team. The side needs some consistency in selection and 9 of yesterday's XI should form the core of the World Cup team. My only changes would be Trescothick for Yardy (thus thrusting more responsability on Collingwood, the underrated ODI bowler) and Batty for Read.
Complain about this postWhat is incredibly bemusing is that, once more, Chris Read isn't singled out for any questioning about his talent despite letting bys through, missing a stumping and scoring 5 runs. we were sold the idea that Read was the best keeper in the world and that he had, finally, worked out how to bat at international level. Ignoring his test returns, even though they were 100 very lucky runs he scored playing this summer, his returns at ODI level are very poor and since his return, that have been getting poorer. Can we afford this liability in the Ashes?
Complain about this postWhat a terrible one day team England are. The blame however, lays entirely with the selectors
Complain about this postEngland have for better or for worse decided to focus the way their top bowlers --Harmison , Flintoff and Hoggard --train to win tests and not one dayers .Quite right too. These pointless one dayers and gimmicky tournaments are just media events to help advertise products. The real thing is Test matches against the top teams.The quality of the England team must be measured by the Ashes win and the away draw against India. How they bowl in slogfests is no test of talent. In fact they should have a B team consisting of honest county pros to feed the media monster while the real team focuses on tests.
Complain about this postThe West Indies for instance beat India in the home one day series in Tests but were soundly beaten in the tests having no answer to Kumble --who was dropped from the one dayers.Great bowlers like Kumble and of course Warne have preserved themselves by avoiding 1 day cricket -either by their own choice or that of their admin.
England did not learn anything from this one day tournament , perhaps because there is little to learn from one day cricket anyway.
duncan fletchers tactics in one day cricket are under serious doubt-john lewis is our most threatening bowler with the new ball and very economic but is left carrying drinks-he does need to bowl his ten straight through and yesterday he showed his ability to do so! jimy anderson as fantastic as he was when he came on the scene isnt performing for england and his lack of a brain is clearly evident when he continues to bowl half volleys and full tosses at the end of the innings. If you look at the best one day sides like pakistan india australia they open up with two quality bowlers australia have mcgrath and lee india have pathan and patel and pakistan have asif and akthar they more often than not knock over 2-3 wickets early in the powerplays which means the batting side have to be cautious. England lack a quality new ball attack in one day cricket. we dont take enough wickets and so to not pick our most talented spinner in the last 20 years is also rediculous. You cant play containing spinners we need genuine wicket takers. best side when fit-tresco-bell-strauss-collingwood-peterson-flintoff-dalrymple-prior/read-mahmood/jones-lewis-panesar with collingwood bowling more often
Complain about this postDont you think bell+straus's half centurys proved something?
Complain about this postEngland have 2 many bit part players. Yardy and Dalrymples batting in this form of cricket at international level is not good enough, and there bowling does not merit a place in the team.
The test players showed yet again they are ahead of the others. Flintoff should be a number 6, Cook should be playing 2 and Bell at 3. Monty should be allowed to play his bowling is good enough, and his batting is no worse than Yardy/Dalrymple.
Complain about this postengland were total garbage bring back hoggard in one dayers hes alot better than mahmood as for freddie dont bat at 3 bring cook in at 3 strauss trescothick cook bell pietersen flintoff collingwood jones hoggard giles lewis that would be my team cant be any worse than the crap who are there now
Complain about this postbaffling how cook is not in. but apart from him the squad as it stands looks to have currently the best players in the country in the squad. and that worries me, with the world cup looming. look at the way the aussies played as a team to comfortably defeat india. we rely on flintoff and pietersen too much.
Complain about this postbell and strauss look to be improving as openers, but again its the bowlers who let us down.
monty, broad and plunkett look medium/long term to be a better bet than anderson mahmood and harmison. panesar will improve his fielding as time goes on - i think he already has. so what if he bats 11, he's worth a go. broad and plunkett will improve with top level expereience. they both obviously have the talent.
collingwood and dalrymple should remain as lower middle order allrounders. having another one in yardy, when he patently looks out of his depth, does not make sense. i'm sure he's a good county player. however he is not international class.
keep harmy for the tests 'cos he can't seem to do at one dayers. and his confidence is low.
we will find out a lot more about each player very soon in australia!
Anybody who believes that this hodge podge bunch of semi-talented players will even cause the brilliant Aussies to break a sweat is sadly mistaken. Don't get me wrong I love the England cricket team and wish they would learn to win but they jusat don't seem to be able to do it more than once or twice in a series, usually against sub par opposition.
Complain about this postThe Aussies play as a team, something we rarely do. Wehn one or two of their best bats fail the remainder buckle down and make up for it, we almost never do that, and when was the last time you saw ALL the Aussie bowlers fail to perform? When was the last time the England bowlers failed to perform?
Their really only is a contest if England play out of their skin and Australia play very, very badly.
This happened last time but rest assured it WILL NOT happen again.
The australians are like a bear, wound them and they come back stronger.
The best chance we had to retain the ashes was to completely humiliate the Aussies last time, but we didn't do that.
This time around expect 4-0 or worse.
Everyone is putting it all on Freddie's shoulders, he is too young for that kind of pressure, pile it on him and he will fail, same goes for KP.
No top quality team relies on just one or two players, except England, and they do it at their peril.
If there is only the slightest doubt about Flintoff’s ankle, the hard (especially this year) Aussie wickets will sort him out quickly. I still remember Bob Willis labouring, and manfully continuing, during an ashes series down under, but with a suspect ankle to start with, Flintoff is on a hiding to nothing.
Complain about this postThe problem is the selection policy. Jon Lewis should have played from the start, he was our best bowler against Pakistan at home. Flintoff cannot play as only a batsman, it upsets our balance. Harmison is not a one day bowler. Until we start to pick the best players, and only the best players, we are going to struggle. Why is Bell opening the batting, when we have Alistair Cooke? It really frustrates me, we have the players but we choose to ignore them, and load the side with average bits and pieces players.
Complain about this postEngland made a right mess of their chamions tropy campaign. team selections were poor to begin with, strategies were flawed and execution absent. Why did the ECB leave Stuart Broad at home and pick an extremely ordinary bowler-batsman in yardy for this tournament? Saj. Mahmood needs az couple of years of hard work with a bowling coach and Steve Harmisn isn't one day material by any stretch - he can't bat, field and as we discovered, bowl. would someone like rikki carke or ryan sidebottom been a better choice for this India tour? Given the performance by the Wizards of Oz against India, England clearly needs to be afraid. very afraid.
Complain about this postIn bowling consistency is needed as evidenced by the Australians. Neither of their "fast" bowlers is as fast as he once was but both maintain good line and length, as do their up-and-coming bowlers. (And let us not forgewt Warne who so often settles into good line and length from his ipoening ball).
Complain about this postJones, England's most dangerous bowler when he was fit, had these attributes.Lewis displays them and to a lesser extent, Hoggard.
While prehaps a tad quicker, Harmison, Anderson, and Mahmood quicker are lacking in them and sadly appear incapable of them.
As for batting, Pieterson finally "built" an innings against India. Strauss and Bell and sometimes Flintoff have "built" well but are out too often in that vital second fifty. "Building" should become paramount and England will need Cook and Trescothick to help Collingwood provide some backbone to an innings.
Consistency, line and length, and building should be watchwords in Australia. Otherwise, this England team could make McGrath's 5-0 whitewash into a reality.
I believe Englands troubles stem from the fact that you cant walk back into international cricket after a lengthy abscence and perform. It is not football or rugby where as soon as you are fit you can play at a top level. They cannot bring back players like Flintoff and Anderson both have whom have missed the entire almost the entire domestic season. Also Flintoff selection as captain astounds me especially in the ODI captain when Andrew Strauss finally found a winning formula against Pakistan
Complain about this postWhen playing in India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, Paul Collingwood seems to be the only player apart from the 3 that are already mentioned in the column who can win matches for England. The pitches have been most "un-Indian" from we have seen so far but seemed very similar to the pitches in the West Indies when India toured recently. Hence, this should be useful experience for the World Cup if winning a one-day tournament not hosted in England is important to the ECB and players.
It looks like the England team and the ECB officials are only interested in retaining the Ashes and do not really care what happens in other matches or tournaments.
The team will have learnt nothing useful from the complete tournament since the conditions (pitches, climate & spectators) are completely different when compared to what they will face in Australia.
However, all this will not matter if England retain the Ashes.
Complain about this postroll on ze ashes!
my ashes team is as follows.
tres - jeeez. makes me nervous just THINKING about what mcgrath is gonna be whispering him between balls during that first over...but whatever's rattling around that helmet i hope tres can nail a few lusty blows early on. settle the nerves!
bell - he's damn good and he's proved that over the last year or so. i reckon his game will be pretty annoying for the ozzie attack.
strauss - this guy's probably our best player, best technique, best temperament, good fielder, should've been captain too, in my opinion. if i were a betting man i wouldn't bet against him 'doing a vaughn' this winter.
colly - 100% EFFORT goes along way, clearly. we need him in there. his contributions have become pretty vital. i don't think they'll like the sight of him at cover point! bad memories!
pieterson - all or nothing, eh? either way we know he'll have lots to say about it.
fred - captaincy HAS clipped his wings a bit, but hey ho. he always seems to do ok, doesn't he?!
dalrymple - he's done everything asked of him, he's a very good batsman AND a good bowler, and i think he's better than the bit part player some of you people think he is. he could be our secret weapon, purely cos he's got the balls for the big occasion and he likes a scrap. i'd be tempted to stick him up the order on a run chase. (i once watched him nail 250 runs off a county attack including a pumped-up heath streak)
read - he's better than jones. there's noone else at this stage.
anderson - can't wait to see him on the ozzie pitches. he's gonna be our best bowler.
mahmood - he's got potential, and i think he deserves a crack. harmison has been utter crap for about 2 years and i simply don't see why his reputation (and the fact that he's tall) should count for so very much...
panesar - he's damn good.
cook in for tres
Complain about this posti believe Michael Yardy has been unfairly treated over his performance against the West Indies.
His 5 overs went for 32 runs but Fintoffs 5 went for 27 and Collingwood and Anderson had worse run rates.
His dismissal was so obviously not out that the 3rd umpire could easily have informed the umpires before the next batsman took his place.
Bravo's reaction was rather sheepish and the high fives celebration lacked their usual intensity.
The TV commentators seemed to take a long time to realise an injustice had taken place.
They were still talking about bravo's finger being underneath the ball when it was so obvious that that the ball had bounced first before the so called catch.
Why did the umpires not call for assistance or is it not allowed.
In Yardy's last three innings he has been umpired out twice which is grossly ubfair or unlucky whichever way you look at it.
Is it because he is a relative newcomer?
Complain about this postI wonder if it would have happened to one of the star players.
In the Australia game i thought India were very unfortunate to have several LBW appeals turned down at a critical time, and overall the standard of umpiring has not been good.
As a fan of England International Cricket Team, I have to say this.
Complain about this postWhenever you are going into any game, the bottom line there will always be a winning team and a losing team.
If you want to win the game, you have got to have a plan before you start on that day. The game day will be the day for you to put your plan, into action.
The ICC Champions Trophy 2004, they give it away to the WI – in ENGLAND. This time around they decided they don’t want it, for the first 2 games EICT did not show up-however they showed up for the last game. What was the point, to let your fan know that you can play?
Last summer was great, when they won the ashes. Get over it, it’s time to move on. In a couple days time, they will have to fight for the ashes again. If you know that you will not show up for the games, please just give the ashes back to Ricky Ponting.
Stop talking so much, and focus on the dame series ahead of you. You have got some great players on the team, I don’t understand why they are not playing the game.
Then you have the world cup coming up!! What is going to happen there? Will EICT be there to play?
Also, they have got to know the difference between TM and ODIs. They should do what ever it takes to get them ready for the game TM or ODI. Stop saying we are not good, at ODIs. Once you understand the main point of the game, you should have ever other thing else plan out. Have you ever heard in the history of cricket, that the 2 captains come together on the field on the game day and discuss between themselves who should have the game.
On the first TM between Australia and England, do you think Ponting will give Flintoff the game? Or Ponting will come out to win the toss and then hand over the game to Flintoff? Both teams will have to play the best of their abilities, and then the best team will win….
I love the game of cricket, but the most disappointing thing in any game-is when the team does not show up. England has been doing this for sometime now, it’s time to get off your ass and play as a TEAM….
Bring back the ASHES to England.....
England need a new strategy:
1. Play at least 4 ideally 5 bowlers who can contain and take wickets (even in the middle overs). For quicks Anderson, S Jones, Flintoff, Lewis and Broad should be on the plane and Mahmood first reserve. For spinners only Panesar fits and if you don't go for him you need guys who can do what is needed with the bat. That, ironically, probably means Giles who can throw the bat better than Yardy or Dalymple.
2. Posting a winning total is principally about the top order scoring runs. Players like Joyce, Solanki etc. who have no proven class should be excluded. Tresco, Vaughan to be added Joyce and Clarke taken away. Cook as reserve. The keeper should have a better batting technique than Read - how about Foster since he might be OK at 7 with Giles at 8.
3. batting order, mix up left and right handers. Pieterson at 5 where he can be the hero winning a proportion of games that we would otherwise certainly lose. Open with tresco and bell, then strauss, flintoff, pieterson, collingwood
Complain about this postWhen will England realise that Geraint Jones is the best man for the Job
Complain about this postBrilliant analysis by Simon, how does he do it?
Complain about this postThe selectors have made a BIIIG mistake in giving Flintoff the captaincy. He is bound to shoulder the burden and overbowl himself.
in the heat of Australia, and his already dodgy ankle, this is a bad move.
The number of players in the squad who are coming back from injury and haven't played for a long time is massive:
Anderson (back) - last game was in FEB
Flintoff (ankle) - missed the whole summer
Giles (hip) - last game was last DECEMBER
Plunkett (side strain) - last game was in June
Trescothick (stress) - out of form, out of mind
The last time we toured Australia, we promised that we would never take injured playes with us on tour again. That lasted a long time, didn't it?
Team for the First Test:
If you play 4 bowlers, you have to make sure that they are the best available. Eg. Panesar before Giles.
However if you go the 5 bowlers, 5 batters route, then you should play at least 2 bowlers who can bat a bit (Giles/ Mahmood/ Plunkett)
If you do go the 6 batters, 4 bowlers route, then you should pick Read, if not, then go for G Jones.
My selections:
1. Trescothick
Complain about this post2. Strauss (c)
3. Cook
4. Bell
5. Pietersen
6. Collingwood
7. Flintoff
8. Read (wk)
9. Hoggard
10. Harmison
11. Panesar
With Marcus Trescothick back, Bell can go down to 3, Andrew Flintoff can go back to 6 and with Batty at 7 or 8 and with Collingwood, Pietersen and Dalrymple mixing flair and grit, England will bat down to 8 and should have no problem scoring runs.
Complain about this postI feel like a complete blank, but I don't care. Pfft. I've pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.
Complain about this post