Testing times

[undyingking]

The Third Test is about to start, so here some quick thoughts.

The return of Collingwood above Flintoff means the batting is notionally pretty strong now. Presumably Ambrose will drop down to 8, which seems a place too low if he bats to form: but he hasn't been. The only other option would have been to bring in a different keeper to bat at 6, but who? -- Prior and others are in good county form, but so was Ambrose: county form seems to mean increasingly little.

The concern is obviously with the bowling. Are four bowlers plus Collingwood going to be enough on the Edgbaston featherbed? They must be thinking that Collingwood is pretty much a genuine fifth bowler, together with I suppose some Pietersen if it's turning. Maybe that's justified: he's been more successful as a bowler recently than I realized, 11 wickets at 23 in the last year or so. Harmison must feel hard done-by, but with Anderson, Panesar undroppable, and Flintoff and Sidebottom just returned, he had to be the one to go, particularly as this pitch might not do a lot for him. I would rather see him playing as one of five bowlers, but that would have made such a long tail it's not acceptable while the batsmen are unreliable. Maybe at the Oval we'll see that, if things go well here and they're pushing for the win by then.

I am obviously very disappointed that Essex missed out on the Twenty20 final, and the Champions League place that would have followed. Although the Indians are still saying that Kent are unacceptable because of their ICL connections, so who knows. I hear tell now that the ECB may be considering a rival Champions League themselves -- this is crazy. It's going to be bad enough having two barely-distinguishable domestic Twenty20 tournaments, without having two barely-distinguishable international ones too.

Comments

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

If Twenty20 were a new sport, rather than just a new event within an existing sport, then it wouldn't be at all surprising for there to be competing leagues. I'm not sure it's even harmful - doesn't do much for the dignity of the ICC that they can't control their sport even at the international level, but it's been some time since the ICC had any dignity anyway. There are more rich investors who think there's gold in them thar hills than there is space for leagues. They'll sort themselves out in a few years. The fundamental question of whether the money in Twenty20 will draw players away from Tests is the same however the Twenty20 is organised, because it will expand to fill audience demand no matter what. If there are more profitable things 22 players can be doing for 20 days than playing a 4 Test series, then Test cricket will end.

Is Broad really too tired to play, or is that a convenient excuse to select Collingwood, who is showing worse form all round?

Note: I wrote that paragraph a couple of minutes ago, went back to re-read the rest of my comment, and look what happens.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

gah! -- if so then it shows pretty poor judgement, on today's evidence. My feeling is that Broad hasn't bowled well enough this summer to keep his place, whether because he's tired or just not a very good bowler remains to be seen. From a bowling point of view it seems to me that he's a substandard replacement Flintoff, and it may be that he won't come back until Flintoff's next injury.

Oh, they've just announced that Middx have been invited to take part in the Champions League, but Kent have not. Ha ha ha. Hmm, I wonder if the ECB will allow that.

I agree that the Twenty20 beanfeast / overkill isn't surprising, I just think it's a bit of a shambles and that the ICC's weakness is embarrassing. I'm sure it will sort itself out eventually, but only after a squalid period that will shame the sport.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

There's a rock-paper-scissors thing going on. Broad is a better choice than Collingwood, because he's performing better with bat and ball. But Harmison is a better choice than Broad because of his bowling, and Collingwood is a better choice than Harmison because we desperately need a proper batsman at 6.

So it boils down to what shape the team should be. I guess the selectors are scared of Flintoff/Ambrose at 6/7, whoever comes after. But since Collingwood wasn't good enough to keep them at 7/8 at Headingley, I don't see why he's the man for the job at Edgbaston: if we aren't prepared to call Flintoff or Ambrose a batsman, then we should pick someone in form for number 6.

Then again, I like all-rounders anyway, so I want to give Broad every chance to turn into a good one, even if it does mean Flintoff at 6. If he really is fatigued, fair enough, we have to rotate him. Since we don't have another Test all-rounder it's a tricky choice. I'd understand replacing him with either a bowler (Harmison) or with a batsman (Shah? Ramprakash!), but having sent Collingwood away to find form, declaring that he's done so less than two weeks later because he had a good one-day knock is just bizarre.

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

The thing I find strange at the moment is that most of England's woes are coming from their theoretically strong batting line-up, but it's the bowlers who are chopped about the most. I feel for Collingwood, I really do, because I like the guy, and in form, he's fantastic in 2 areas of the game, and at least bearable in the third, but he is right out of touch just at the moment, where Broad has lately had a couple of very respectable knocks as part of the tail.

I agree with the decision not to bring Harmison back just yet though. On top form, he's unbelievable, but when was the last time that happened? Three years ago? A flash in the pan at Old Trafford one or two years ago? On his day, I rate him highly, but to my mind he suffers from the fact that deep down he wanted (and still wants) to be a professional footballer, and if he ever got the chance to do so, he would drop cricket like a bad habit.

The one positive from the day I thought, was Flintoff. He may have been a tad over-cautious, but the fact that he was cautious, and ended up with a not-out, and ended the day with a wicket has got to be a good sign for the future.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

In the county game, though, Harmison is on top form right now -- he's taken 75 wickets already this season. So if he's not to be given another try at Test level now, surely he never is. Which would be an entirely reasonable position to take: but you said "not just yet", so what are you envisaging changing?

I thought it was a pity Flintoff didn't get the new ball, and six overs rather than just two -- in the mood he was in, he might well have toppled a few.

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I hadn't been paying Harmison close attention in the last few weeks, the figures I had seen for him at the beginning of the season had looked unspectacular. If he's back to his best, then I'm happy to stand corrected.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

It seems like a number 8 will be more useful than a proper all-rounder, if we assume that Flintoff / [keeper] at 6/7 is the ideal shape when Flintoff is performing at top whack and a settled keeper has been established.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

In the long term I agree we do need 5 bowlers: if Flintoff keeps being Plan A and B, bowling half the time, then surely he'll be back on crutches before we know it. So yes, there will come a point where if Broad isn't a test bowler then he isn't in the team. A batsman who can nearly bowl isn't an all-rounder. For that matter, if Flintoff can't bat 6 then he's not the all-rounder we want him to be.

But if Broad does become a credible test bowler, then he's better than a classic number 8. Anyone saying "gah, he can't bowl, he's taken 3 wickets for 280 this series and averages 50 in tests" has to also say, "hmm, he's averaged 80 this series and 40 in tests", and pick him as number 6 batsman :-)

I'd have been happy with Harmison, but I do think Broad has to be kept close to the team. Still, we're about to find out whether we can make do with 4 bowlers.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Oh, and: Ramprakash's nerves approaching his 100th century illustrate perfectly the folly of people who've called, down the years, for him to be recalled to the Test team. Like Hick, he has everything needed to be a terrific batsman at the highest level, apart from the mental strength.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Plus of course the elephant in the room. Fundamentally, until Vaughan either looks like scoring runs, or else is awful for so long that we think about a new captain, England can't be a good team.

If you're going to pick the captain then the team, (and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that) then you have to accept that if the captain doesn't play well over the course of a series then you lose. We don't have the consistency elsewhere to cope for long with Pietersen effectively at 3.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

awful for so long

Yet I imagine they'd be terrified of installing a new captain just before the Ashes. Especially if that new captain can't be Collingwood (if his poor form continues) or Flintoff (was useless captain previously) or Strauss (for whatever mysterious reason he was ruled out before). Cook and Bell are surely too young, Pietersen too unpredictable: and it seems that none of the bowlers (or the keeper) can be sure of retaining their place. They might I suppose bring in some experienced county captain (Key?) but that in itself would require a major policy change.

It may be that Vaughan continues to hold the post by sheer default. Which is a very depressing thought.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

These decisions might be easier if we decided in advance how long a run of atrocious performances a captain is allowed (and whether bad dismissals are subtracted from it). We clearly can't drop him within 3 matches of a century on the theory that he can't score, but we also can't go on for years saying "he doesn't justify his selection, but we can't be changing captains: we have a cricket match coming up!".

it seems that none of the bowlers (or the keeper) can be sure of retaining their place

Monty for captain!

[dr-bob.livejournal.com]

Any comment I make now could be seen as retrospectoscopy, but it seems that England are currently suffering from having no all-rounders, and no brilliance. KP is erratic, and when the pitch gets a bit unpredictable or his ego gets tugged, he just can't cope, but he can be awesome. Anderson can occasionally bowl a magic ball, as can Monty. But we've got no Murali or McGrath. And no-one seems able to anchor an innings. A Dravid or Chandrapaul, whose wicket will only fall to a great piece of bowling, or possibly tiredness once into the 150s. Cook seems the closest we have to that temperamentally, but he just isn't quite there yet in experience. And how Collingwood got recalled ahead of Shah, whose last few England performances have been really good (or not-outs stuck with the tail) I just don't know - they must all hate him!

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say the South Africans are endowed with brilliance in the Murali / McGrath class, though. But they seem to be better at performing to their potential rather than below it. Even when as yesterday Ntini was below par, the other bowlers all put in a really good show, without any of them being authentically world-class. Similarly with the bat, although they all fail from time to time, they never seem to do the mass rush-of-blood collapse that is England's speciality.

Agree about Shah: mind you it's quite easy to imagine that they do all hate him, he comes across as not the most likeable of characters. I would rather see Bopara, who adds something with the ball, for Collingwood: not as good a bat as Shah yet, but he needs to gain the experience.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Similarly with the bat, although they all fail from time to time,

Everyone does - England's problem is that we go out assuming that three or four will fail, and hence rely on key players to score every time. I wonder whether the rest of the team unwittingly believes that if Pietersen doesn't get 50 there's nothing to be done.