@ Addick Addict ... your prime example of Sangakkara is an interesting one. A T20 average of 31.40 at a Strike rate of 119.55.
In 20 overs, on his own, he would total about 144. That sort of score would lose as often as it would win.
Sadly (and I've just picked these on a whim) players like Woakes (24.50 at 148.48) and Sam Curran (18.20 at 159.64 ) are a much better bet. And there are probably hundreds of others.
In T20, you can get away with high risk, poor technique shots. If you do get out, the next clubber might get lucky.
In Test cricket, it's the opposite .. and good technique is paramount. Just like Boycott says.
Not Ashes related but Quinton de Kock has announced his retirement from Test cricket at the age of 29.
IMO that is a huge blow for South Africa and test cricket in general. The shot he played today suggested he'd lost interest and was not right mentally, but what a shame for the test game to lose such a player at 29.
What exactly is Root supposed to say, "we are dogshit and I blame it all on my teammates and also the ECB for ruining the game"?
I know Boycott would probably have said that, but then he also was convicted for domestic abuse so, to use his own language, I "dont give a toss" what the old bastard has to say these days.
How about this from Root?
"We are unhappy with the way that we have lost the first three games and we recognise that our batsmen have to adjust to the wickets and conditions in Australia. In particular, we need to leave balls which are going over the stumps ... as you can trust the bounce more here than in England ... and this will reduce the number of gloved and edged chances that are going to the slip cordon."
"We also need our batsmen to concentrate on building a big innings. It's difficult when the ball is new and the bowlers are fresh, so we have to focus on defence primarily. That means avoiding risky shots and preserving our wicket rather than run scoring. If we can survive the first hour or two, we can cash in later as the bowlers tire and the ball becomes less problematic."
OK with that? Or do you prefer the kind of recycled jingoism that we usually hear (and Anderson has just done it in the last hour or so) where the players are urged to 'give it everything' and that we have to 'move on and go again'?
@ Addick Addict ... your prime example of Sangakkara is an interesting one. A T20 average of 31.40 at a Strike rate of 119.55.
In 20 overs, on his own, he would total about 144. That sort of score would lose as often as it would win.
Sadly (and I've just picked these on a whim) players like Woakes (24.50 at 148.48) and Sam Curran (18.20 at 159.64 ) are a much better bet. And there are probably hundreds of others.
In T20, you can get away with high risk, poor technique shots. If you do get out, the next clubber might get lucky.
In Test cricket, it's the opposite .. and good technique is paramount. Just like Boycott says.
Add half a dozen extras and 150 would have been enough to win more than half of the games in the recent T20 World Cup. The point about Sangakkara is that he could rotate the strike to allow the hitters to face more balls. But that isn't any good if Bairstow, Banton and Morgan were consistently getting out for next to nothing at the other end. Woakes and Curran do not bat in the Power Play which is the only time that the white ball really does anything and their scores will probably not alter the result if, again, you are three down inside the first half a dozen overs.
Not Ashes related but Quinton de Kock has announced his retirement from Test cricket at the age of 29.
IMO that is a huge blow for South Africa and test cricket in general. The shot he played today suggested he'd lost interest and was not right mentally, but what a shame for the test game to lose such a player at 29.
A good player but by no means a great one at Test level.
Rickelton, Verreynne or Qeshile will walk into the team now, they have big boots to fill, but not insurmountably big ones
Not Ashes related but Quinton de Kock has announced his retirement from Test cricket at the age of 29.
IMO that is a huge blow for South Africa and test cricket in general. The shot he played today suggested he'd lost interest and was not right mentally, but what a shame for the test game to lose such a player at 29.
A good player but by no means a great one at Test level.
Rickelton or Qeshile will walk into the team now, they have big boots to fill, but not insurmountably big ones
It's more that he's another "big name" exiting the Test stage early.
You can imagine Buttler doing the same at the end of the Ashes, just as Moeen and Adil Rashid have
And Ross Taylor is retiring from international cricket at the end of the summer too - scored over 3,000 runs against England in all formats
That doesn't necessarily make him a good player!!!
Agreed - but we could do with a middle order bat who averages against all countries just under 45. His actual average against us was less than that at 41
Not Ashes related but Quinton de Kock has announced his retirement from Test cricket at the age of 29.
IMO that is a huge blow for South Africa and test cricket in general. The shot he played today suggested he'd lost interest and was not right mentally, but what a shame for the test game to lose such a player at 29.
A good player but by no means a great one at Test level.
Rickelton or Qeshile will walk into the team now, they have big boots to fill, but not insurmountably big ones
It's more that he's another "big name" exiting the Test stage early.
You can imagine Buttler doing the same at the end of the Ashes, just as Moeen and Adil Rashid have
I just don't think Buttler even wanted to go to Australia or play Test or CC cricket. His body language when keeping reflects that. The irony is that he left Somerset originally because of the competition with Kieswetter for the gloves and then ends up not keeping for three years in the CC.
He will secure his IPL, Big Bash, The Hundred, Blast and other franchsises and do very well too. Great white ball cricketer who carried us on the biggest stage but very average red ball one.
As English cricket goes through its once-a-generation self-flagellation, it is worth remembering that the England team are the 50-over world champions, the No 1-ranked T20 team, the second-ranked 50-over team and fourth-ranked Test team. English cricket is better supported than anywhere bar India. The game has much to recommend it, despite those who see it (wrongly) as an enclave of privilege.
That said, this gruesome Ashes series — the worst I have covered as a journalist — has come at a bad time, the sport having gone through a gruelling 12 months, with division and rancour seemingly everywhere. The anger felt by readers of this newspaper, and others, is because you care and because you feel it was coming, the administrators having taken their eye off the red-ball, first-class game.
Changes are afoot within the game’s governing body and debate rages over the structure of the professional game. Below that water line, the weeds become more tangled, and the question of whether the game is attracting talent from a broad enough base is a chapter, rather than a column, in itself.
That cricket can do better, there is no doubt. But there is a lot of misinformation around the state of the game at grassroots level and about private schools and other pathways. There are those, for example, who would see Joe Root as a product of the private-school system, even though he spent just two years at Worksop College, having been plucked from the state system on a scholarship as an already highly promising player.
Private schools don’t produce players (Worksop, I guarantee, would have had no significant influence on Root’s development), they piggy-back for marketing purposes on those already forged into good players through, usually, family, club and county club associations. The hurdles that make cricket a more difficult sport to take up and excel at notwithstanding (cost, space, complexity etc), the game is highly diverse at recreational and youth level. It can do better, but there is plenty to build on.
England and Wales Cricket Board
After the resignation of Ian Watmore, the ECB has had no chairman and has been rudderless. Headhunters have been engaged and an appointment of a new chairman is expected before the beginning of the English season. Richard Thompson, the chairman of Surrey, is favourite; Alan Dickinson, a non-executive director, is another name in the frame.
Ron Kalifa is heading the appointment committee, but if he could be persuaded to do the job, he would be a good candidate. Having sat on the ECB board for a while, he should know enough about the game now and has been a smart and experienced leader in business and ecommerce.
Beyond that, there is an urgent need for more playing experience on the ECB board, which is full of well-meaning, competent non-execs who know nothing about the sport. The Pakistan fiasco, when England pulled out of a tour which led to a winter of discontent, would not have happened had there been greater knowledge and feel — so important, this — for the game.
Andrew Strauss sits in a non-voting capacity and should be urgently co-opted, while being groomed for Tom Harrison’s job. Harrison is in the final stretch of a seven-year stint as chief executive, and is expected to leave within the next 12 months. Strauss is exceptionally capable and should be persuaded to take the job when Harrison goes. No one in English cricket is better qualified.
Leadership roles
Ashley Giles, the managing director, has made a number of strategic mistakes since taking over from Strauss and hasn’t got the big decisions right. Chris Silverwood, the head coach, has proved to be a poor appointment; untried and untested at this level. He was given an extraordinary amount of power, but is out of his depth.
Not splitting the roles between red ball and white ball was short-sighted and possibly reflected Giles’s own experience as a one-day coach with England. The formats are increasingly divergent and the schedules increasingly demanding, which necessitates splitting the roles.
Ed Smith was ousted as national selector, partly because he made himself unpopular with the playing group. At the moment there seems to be an absence of authority and an unwillingness to challenge the players. Smith, who is smart and a good, strategic thinker, would do that and would make a good replacement for Giles.
Coaching and selection
There is no way Silverwood will (or should) survive the Ashes, which should allow a reorganisation of the coaching and selecting responsibilities. Coaching national teams is not regarded as the plum job it once was, given the schedules, and many of the brightest and best prefer the franchise circuit.
Splitting the job between long-form and short-form cricket should allow England to choose from a greater talent pool, and should allow for coaches, in a very condensed and busy schedule, to rest and recharge in between engagements and plan more effectively for them.
Names? There are many, no doubt, with good credentials: Gary Kirsten, Andy Flower (again), Andrew McDonald, Greg Shipperd, Graham Ford, Jason Gillespie, Mahela Jayawardene, Paul Collingwood, Stephen Fleming, and Justin Langer may become available soon. The list could go on and on, but a pair of proven coaches with broad-based experience would be sought.
A tip? The best coaches often come with a teaching link somewhere in their background. To listen to Eddie Jones, England rugby union head coach, recently in a newspaper interview, and having interviewed him in the winter, was to witness curiosity, sparkle, energy and drive. All sadly lacking right now.
Captaincy
Joe Root has Harrison’s backing and the ECB will try to persuade Root to carry on after Sydney. They shouldn’t. Root has been a good England captain, and has always carried himself superbly and is an incredible ambassador for the sport, but having done the job for five years and having had three cracks at the Ashes, including two awful campaigns in Australia, it is time for someone else to have a go.
There have been so many errors here, from selection to strategy, that the captain has to bear personal responsibility. For all the discussion around systemic change, this could have been a much closer series had Root got things right on the field. These errors have made a good Australian side look much better than they are.
The options are limited, of course. But the lack of alternatives is the worst reason for keeping someone in a job. Ben Stokes is a viable alternative, having done an excellent job as a stand-in briefly in the summer. His bowling is starting to wind down, and, as he may not get into England’s best T20 side now, he can be given a breather during those matches.
Central contracts
Central contracts were the most important reason for England’s improvement in Test cricket around the turn of the century. It is right that players are well-remunerated and looked after. Right now, the balance has tilted too far to the value of the retainer contract, and away from playing time. Match fees should be raised and the retainer reduced.
The leading multi-format players are paid seven-figure sums, but, incredibly, the ECB washes its hands of them for two months of the year during the Indian Premier League. The players should be told that, while the ECB will be accommodating of the request to play in IPL, a 12-month contract is exactly that, and the granting of a no-objection certificate to play in IPL and other franchised competitions is contingent on it being in the best interests of the England team.
Players should not miss international duty to play in the IPL, nor be rested and rotated to allow them to play elsewhere. The carry-on during the winter, and at the start of the English summer, should not happen again.
County cricket
The schedule of professional cricket is the biggest headache of all and demands a fundamental philosophical question to be answered: is county cricket only there to produce international players? Or should it be valued for its own sake? The answer leads to two very different solutions.
A broad-based 18-county game, giving cricket oxygen in all corners of the land; set against a brutal, hard-edged, much reduced system, allowing for excellence, but reducing the visibility of the game in vast swathes of the country?
The history and tradition of 18 counties, set against the modern requirement for three formats (or four, in England’s crazy case), in a short summer calendar provides a Rubik’s cube-like challenge. There are no easy answers.
In a swipe, reducing the number of counties would allow for time, space and a logical summer schedule. But that would be so divisive; it would pitch the haves against have-nots, and how do you decide who would make the cut and who wouldn’t? I offer no easy solution to that.
The schedule is the most important thing to get right, though, with the need to accommodate cricketing excellence, commercial attractiveness and spectator experience and accessibility. Only a fool would think he has all the solutions, but, if deliverable should finally provide some stability for the poor spectator, for whom the game lurches from season to season with no rhyme nor reason.
There is seven days in a week - why not play 4 day games have a day off - have 3 x t20 teams turn up at a ground like finals day and play each other - have a day off . Have a two week block for the hundred using the finals day idea - 3 matches in a day.
That fits everything in.
I do think that there are too many very very average county cricketers - I would cut them down to 8 teams and make it a meaningful competition
I like the idea, but playing three games in one day will drastically reduce revenue. It would mean that teams would only have one-third of home fixtures and tickets would need to be the same/not much more than current prices. As to whether a T20 crowd could last three games is another matter - both from the viewpoint of sitting still and the beer intake.
Having 2 T20 days in a day is perfectly possible, after all nobody things a 50 over match is too long. Especially if you speed things up, and cut down on the number of delays
Whether "home" fans would want to see 3 away teams, and a match involving 2 away teams is another matter.
I like Atherton. He's exactly the sort of player that we could do with now.
But his journalism leaves me cold. He writes well, but often gets entrenched, and misses the point.
The issue is not about the management and coaching layer (although they could benefit from improvement) ... it's about the viability of the longer form of the game as we ride the waves of 'white ball' cricket.
Here's the issue, Mike: One random picture. It's a dying game ... and the kids aren't bothered.
Not keeping his mouth shut . The bloke had nothing good to say about anyone but himself
That's because he was quite good at the very things which England are struggling with now.
So criticism is not allowed even if correct? Hmmm.
40 years tomorrow since Boycott played his last test ..
Test average 47.72.
Strike rate - bugger all.
I never 'liked' him as a cricketer but always admired him .. as a pundit, I always found his interplay with 'Aggers' on TMS embarrassing and contrived .. Boycott has set himself up as a controversial know all, AND we've all fallen for it ..
Of the few different people I’ve met who have had dealings with Boycott , played cricket, met him and even played golf with him , to a man they all consider him a complete Cnut (not all used those words but with my limited artistic licence you get the picture )
I have never met Boycott, but I can imagine that he would be hard work to endure after more than a few minutes.
But, he says what he thinks ... I don't believe that he is playing any sort of character role ... he simply believes what he says. That can sound arrogant, controversial, self-centred. But he believes it ... so why wouldn't he say it?
And I make him right most times.
By the way, take a look at Gower's article (below) in today's Times. That's a bit closer to the mark for me, compared to Atherton's 'blueprint'.
"Will you be considering your position?” That was the question posed to me by David Norrie of the News of the World after four Tests out of six in 1989, at which stage Australia had just taken a 3-0 lead to secure possession of the urn. Typically, even in the midst of that schmozzle, I chose to respond with a question of my own concerning the phrasing and asked, “Do you mean will I be reconsidering my position?” England captains are always considering their positions — it is only when merde and fans combine that one has to reconsider.
Having one’s captaincy skills questioned never feels good. If one feels the criticism is unjustified it is fair enough to fight back. When your team are losing badly then a degree of honest self-appraisal is required.
As it happened, I was persuaded to carry on, by default rather more than anything else, and, when we finished the series only 4-0 down, that was the moment that the management team of Ted Dexter and Micky Stewart conceded that it was time for a “change of direction” and I directed myself to the Douro Valley in Portugal to lick my wounds.
What they might have said was that it was time for just some direction and the same applies to Joe Root, Chris Silverwood and England right now. We made some bad decisions in ’89, albeit some of them under pressure from results and injuries, and it is widely accepted that there have been errors here in the last weeks: not bowling first in Brisbane; not picking Stuart Broad in Brisbane (to confront David Warner if nothing else); selecting wrong teams for the first two Tests and wrong lengths in Australia’s first innings at Adelaide; and then enforced changes for the third and so on.
Root can finish off the series and then consider his options but Silverwood should start applying for another county job, where his level is.
It was poignant that as this third Test was beginning, the death of Ray Illingworth was announced. Ray, to whom I owe a huge debt for his influence on my career, was the man who made the most of his resources on the 1970-71 Ashes tour to coax a winning performance from a team that arrived in Australia unfancied. Mind you, that’s how all England teams arrive down under. He was a better captain than Root, firm yet cool-headed and adept at manipulating situations to win games by sometimes the slimmest of margins. If only there were some slim margins currently to give some consolation or even inspiration for the remaining two matches of this series.
There are so many aspects that require attention for the England Test team to be given a chance to regain their proper status: the balance of white versus red-ball cricket, county schedules, coaching, techniques, pitches, balls; the list is apparently endless, which it always will be until a side begins to win again.
I want to pick on the element of technique. One of the things required to be a good Test player is to be able to adapt to conditions wherever you go in the world. This is something that has to be learnt each time you come across unfamiliar territory and learnt ever more quickly nowadays, with less time allowed even pre-Covid for acclimatisation on tour.
In today’s papers in Melbourne, David Warner, he of the Test average of 9.5 in the 2019 Ashes, was dishing out — I have to say, sensible — advice on preparing to bat in Australia, where bounce is endemically more of a factor than back in England. Without outdoor facilities or match practice available, as was the case on this tour, an indoor surface and a bouncy synthetic pitch was his recommendation.
Given that the modern game has available to it infinitely more information than in days gone by, it is bemusing why so much fuss was made before the third Test about techniques in leaving the ball, as if it had only just dawned on England that it might actually be a good idea. Anyone who has either been to Australia before, for instance the captain, or watched historic footage, knows that bounce is a factor. The question is how quickly one, as an individual batsman, can adapt. It is a reason why Dawid Malan was inked in quickly to return to Test cricket because he has the required technique. The other question is why the England coaching staff appeared to be slow in grasping the point too?
It is why I was worried about how Haseeb Hameed might adapt. When he made his first runs in India and impressed there, I remember asking the question as to how he might fare in Australia because his instinctive technique involves relatively low hands. He has been severely and sorely tested and has had some brutish, unplayable balls bowled to him, but now you can see the evidence of an understandable lack of confidence. There was a side-on replay at the MCG which showed how far out in front of his body his bat was as he nicked behind off Pat Cummins. It is a familiar sign of a batsman searching for the ball.
Throughout the history of the game the best batsmen have let the ball come to them. Look at Root, whose batting has been truly wonderful all year: he plays the ball reliably under his nose, allowing himself those crucial extra inches of looking at the ball, and as such appears to have that thing — time — that is the hallmark of the greats. As soon as you start pushing at the ball with bat way out in front you are acknowledging a desperation to get bat on ball rather than the control you have when all is right with your batting.
To be a regular Test player requires people to learn these new techniques. For some a “horses for courses” selection policy means a place in the team, but only when it suits. For others, it is the end of the road. If new blood is needed, can we be sure that the next man in line has the technique and temperament to succeed or will he just be the next one to be exposed as not up to the job? You have to go back to Duncan Fletcher for a man who both had the nose for talent (he gave Marcus Trescothick his debut) and the nous to coach men out of bad habits.
It is a sign more of a lack of current form and confidence but batting well at any level is the result of learning the right things early. Everything you learn from your schooldays onwards is about training your instinct to do the right thing. With 0.4 of a second to react to the likes of Cummins and Mitchell Starc you do not have time to think about what you are going to do. Instinct it is.
The coaching one receives in one’s formative years is essential to building both a good technique and reliable instinct. There is an interesting piece on cricbuzz.com which addresses the coaching issues at greater length but the main point is that good habits have to be inculcated early on as the basis for any potential success when up against the best in Test cricket.
Having said that, any of the world’s top batsmen would have been tested by that 45 minutes from Cummins, Starc and Scott Boland at the end of day two at the MCG. As would any of us from previous generations.
There was an interesting Stephan Shemilt piece on he BBC website a couple of days ago in which he argues, among other things, that the issue isn't county cricket failing to produce potential test players but that players never seem to actually improve under the influence of the England coaching setup, and indeed often fall to bits. That's something I've heard off and on all my life, tales of cricketers having to leave England and go back to their county to put their batting game back together.
I don't think the emphasis on shot-playing can be blamed for all of it, either. All three of the top test sides (NZ, Aus & India) play a relatively attacking style of test cricket. It can work, if players have the underlying ability to judge when to play the attacking shot. That's a matter of confidence as well as ability, and confidence has often been an issue among England sides. Back in the 90s, the initial solution was as simple as appointing a captain who gave players a kicking if they accepted defeat instead of going down fighting. Nasser Hussain turned the attitude round and the results followed.
For the fifth time in six tours, they have lost the urn at the earliest available opportunity, this time in record-breakingly swift fashion.
It took just 852.3 overs, the smallest quantity of cricket ever required for Australia to win the Ashes at home after a third Test lasting just 180 overs and four balls - also making this the earliest any team has ever lost a five-Test series.
England's openers finished with a collective tally of 14 ducks in 2021, a record by a frankly humiliating margin.
Over the previous 10 years of Test cricket, England's openers blobbed out 27 times in 121 matches, an average of one opener-duck per 4.5 Tests.
There was an interesting Stephan Shemilt piece on he BBC website a couple of days ago in which he argues, among other things, that the issue isn't county cricket failing to produce potential test players but that players never seem to actually improve under the influence of the England coaching setup, and indeed often fall to bits. That's something I've heard off and on all my life, tales of cricketers having to leave England and go back to their county to put their batting game back together.
I don't think the emphasis on shot-playing can be blamed for all of it, either. All three of the top test sides (NZ, Aus & India) play a relatively attacking style of test cricket. It can work, if players have the underlying ability to judge when to play the attacking shot. That's a matter of confidence as well as ability, and confidence has often been an issue among England sides. Back in the 90s, the initial solution was as simple as appointing a captain who gave players a kicking if they accepted defeat instead of going down fighting. Nasser Hussain turned the attitude round and the results followed.
I remember the England coaching in the mid 2000s nearly ruining Jimmy Anderson. Instead of learning his trade by playing lots of games for Lancashire, he was in the England setup, never playing and having his technique taken apart
Has anyone that applied in the Oval ballot for England 2022 games heard anything yet? Website says entrants will be informed shortly. Ballot closed 12th November.
Today's Times' says that Gary Kirsten is interested in taking the England coaching role and a shock, so is Justin Langer
Whoever gets the gig, Ed Smith or his like need to be reappointed to a selector/scout role to keep an eye out for emerging talent
This should immediately rule both of them out. The correct answer, when quizzed by the media about taking someone else's job is to remind said media that there isn't a vacancy.
They may well out their names forward, but it undermines the incumbent if they're positioning themselves for his job. After all, I imagine they wouldn't want it to happen to them.
Today's Times' says that Gary Kirsten is interested in taking the England coaching role and a shock, so is Justin Langer
Whoever gets the gig, Ed Smith or his like need to be reappointed to a selector/scout role to keep an eye out for emerging talent
kirsten should've got the gig instead of silverwood - although i can see why they went for silverwood, you need to encourage successful english coaches... but when has that worked before? Moores was a disaster and looks like silverwood is going the same way.
Comments
In 20 overs, on his own, he would total about 144. That sort of score would lose as often as it would win.
Sadly (and I've just picked these on a whim) players like Woakes (24.50 at 148.48) and Sam Curran (18.20 at 159.64 ) are a much better bet. And there are probably hundreds of others.
In T20, you can get away with high risk, poor technique shots. If you do get out, the next clubber might get lucky.
In Test cricket, it's the opposite .. and good technique is paramount. Just like Boycott says.
The shot he played today suggested he'd lost interest and was not right mentally, but what a shame for the test game to lose such a player at 29.
On a more amusing note, this is 6ft 8in Marco Jansen and 5ft 4in Temba Bavuma batting together in the Test
"We are unhappy with the way that we have lost the first three games and we recognise that our batsmen have to adjust to the wickets and conditions in Australia. In particular, we need to leave balls which are going over the stumps ... as you can trust the bounce more here than in England ... and this will reduce the number of gloved and edged chances that are going to the slip cordon."
"We also need our batsmen to concentrate on building a big innings. It's difficult when the ball is new and the bowlers are fresh, so we have to focus on defence primarily. That means avoiding risky shots and preserving our wicket rather than run scoring. If we can survive the first hour or two, we can cash in later as the bowlers tire and the ball becomes less problematic."
OK with that? Or do you prefer the kind of recycled jingoism that we usually hear (and Anderson has just done it in the last hour or so) where the players are urged to 'give it everything' and that we have to 'move on and go again'?
Rickelton, Verreynne or Qeshile will walk into the team now, they have big boots to fill, but not insurmountably big ones
You can imagine Buttler doing the same at the end of the Ashes, just as Moeen and Adil Rashid have
He will secure his IPL, Big Bash, The Hundred, Blast and other franchsises and do very well too. Great white ball cricketer who carried us on the biggest stage but very average red ball one.
Surely Warner is a shoo-in for a +ive on that one
After the resignation of Ian Watmore, the ECB has had no chairman and has been rudderless. Headhunters have been engaged and an appointment of a new chairman is expected before the beginning of the English season. Richard Thompson, the chairman of Surrey, is favourite; Alan Dickinson, a non-executive director, is another name in the frame.
Ashley Giles, the managing director, has made a number of strategic mistakes since taking over from Strauss and hasn’t got the big decisions right. Chris Silverwood, the head coach, has proved to be a poor appointment; untried and untested at this level. He was given an extraordinary amount of power, but is out of his depth.
There is no way Silverwood will (or should) survive the Ashes, which should allow a reorganisation of the coaching and selecting responsibilities. Coaching national teams is not regarded as the plum job it once was, given the schedules, and many of the brightest and best prefer the franchise circuit.
Joe Root has Harrison’s backing and the ECB will try to persuade Root to carry on after Sydney. They shouldn’t. Root has been a good England captain, and has always carried himself superbly and is an incredible ambassador for the sport, but having done the job for five years and having had three cracks at the Ashes, including two awful campaigns in Australia, it is time for someone else to have a go.
Central contracts were the most important reason for England’s improvement in Test cricket around the turn of the century. It is right that players are well-remunerated and looked after. Right now, the balance has tilted too far to the value of the retainer contract, and away from playing time. Match fees should be raised and the retainer reduced.
The schedule of professional cricket is the biggest headache of all and demands a fundamental philosophical question to be answered: is county cricket only there to produce international players? Or should it be valued for its own sake? The answer leads to two very different solutions.
Whether "home" fans would want to see 3 away teams, and a match involving 2 away teams is another matter.
But his journalism leaves me cold. He writes well, but often gets entrenched, and misses the point.
The issue is not about the management and coaching layer (although they could benefit from improvement) ... it's about the viability of the longer form of the game as we ride the waves of 'white ball' cricket.
Here's the issue, Mike: One random picture. It's a dying game ... and the kids aren't bothered.
Strike rate - bugger all.
But, he says what he thinks ... I don't believe that he is playing any sort of character role ... he simply believes what he says. That can sound arrogant, controversial, self-centred. But he believes it ... so why wouldn't he say it?
And I make him right most times.
By the way, take a look at Gower's article (below) in today's Times. That's a bit closer to the mark for me, compared to Atherton's 'blueprint'.
"Will you be considering your position?” That was the question posed to me by David Norrie of the News of the World after four Tests out of six in 1989, at which stage Australia had just taken a 3-0 lead to secure possession of the urn. Typically, even in the midst of that schmozzle, I chose to respond with a question of my own concerning the phrasing and asked, “Do you mean will I be reconsidering my position?” England captains are always considering their positions — it is only when merde and fans combine that one has to reconsider.
Having one’s captaincy skills questioned never feels good. If one feels the criticism is unjustified it is fair enough to fight back. When your team are losing badly then a degree of honest self-appraisal is required.
As it happened, I was persuaded to carry on, by default rather more than anything else, and, when we finished the series only 4-0 down, that was the moment that the management team of Ted Dexter and Micky Stewart conceded that it was time for a “change of direction” and I directed myself to the Douro Valley in Portugal to lick my wounds.
What they might have said was that it was time for just some direction and the same applies to Joe Root, Chris Silverwood and England right now. We made some bad decisions in ’89, albeit some of them under pressure from results and injuries, and it is widely accepted that there have been errors here in the last weeks: not bowling first in Brisbane; not picking Stuart Broad in Brisbane (to confront David Warner if nothing else); selecting wrong teams for the first two Tests and wrong lengths in Australia’s first innings at Adelaide; and then enforced changes for the third and so on.
Root can finish off the series and then consider his options but Silverwood should start applying for another county job, where his level is.
It was poignant that as this third Test was beginning, the death of Ray Illingworth was announced. Ray, to whom I owe a huge debt for his influence on my career, was the man who made the most of his resources on the 1970-71 Ashes tour to coax a winning performance from a team that arrived in Australia unfancied. Mind you, that’s how all England teams arrive down under. He was a better captain than Root, firm yet cool-headed and adept at manipulating situations to win games by sometimes the slimmest of margins. If only there were some slim margins currently to give some consolation or even inspiration for the remaining two matches of this series.
There are so many aspects that require attention for the England Test team to be given a chance to regain their proper status: the balance of white versus red-ball cricket, county schedules, coaching, techniques, pitches, balls; the list is apparently endless, which it always will be until a side begins to win again.
I want to pick on the element of technique. One of the things required to be a good Test player is to be able to adapt to conditions wherever you go in the world. This is something that has to be learnt each time you come across unfamiliar territory and learnt ever more quickly nowadays, with less time allowed even pre-Covid for acclimatisation on tour.
In today’s papers in Melbourne, David Warner, he of the Test average of 9.5 in the 2019 Ashes, was dishing out — I have to say, sensible — advice on preparing to bat in Australia, where bounce is endemically more of a factor than back in England. Without outdoor facilities or match practice available, as was the case on this tour, an indoor surface and a bouncy synthetic pitch was his recommendation.
Given that the modern game has available to it infinitely more information than in days gone by, it is bemusing why so much fuss was made before the third Test about techniques in leaving the ball, as if it had only just dawned on England that it might actually be a good idea. Anyone who has either been to Australia before, for instance the captain, or watched historic footage, knows that bounce is a factor. The question is how quickly one, as an individual batsman, can adapt. It is a reason why Dawid Malan was inked in quickly to return to Test cricket because he has the required technique. The other question is why the England coaching staff appeared to be slow in grasping the point too?
It is why I was worried about how Haseeb Hameed might adapt. When he made his first runs in India and impressed there, I remember asking the question as to how he might fare in Australia because his instinctive technique involves relatively low hands. He has been severely and sorely tested and has had some brutish, unplayable balls bowled to him, but now you can see the evidence of an understandable lack of confidence. There was a side-on replay at the MCG which showed how far out in front of his body his bat was as he nicked behind off Pat Cummins. It is a familiar sign of a batsman searching for the ball.
Throughout the history of the game the best batsmen have let the ball come to them. Look at Root, whose batting has been truly wonderful all year: he plays the ball reliably under his nose, allowing himself those crucial extra inches of looking at the ball, and as such appears to have that thing — time — that is the hallmark of the greats. As soon as you start pushing at the ball with bat way out in front you are acknowledging a desperation to get bat on ball rather than the control you have when all is right with your batting.
To be a regular Test player requires people to learn these new techniques. For some a “horses for courses” selection policy means a place in the team, but only when it suits. For others, it is the end of the road. If new blood is needed, can we be sure that the next man in line has the technique and temperament to succeed or will he just be the next one to be exposed as not up to the job? You have to go back to Duncan Fletcher for a man who both had the nose for talent (he gave Marcus Trescothick his debut) and the nous to coach men out of bad habits.
It is a sign more of a lack of current form and confidence but batting well at any level is the result of learning the right things early. Everything you learn from your schooldays onwards is about training your instinct to do the right thing. With 0.4 of a second to react to the likes of Cummins and Mitchell Starc you do not have time to think about what you are going to do. Instinct it is.
The coaching one receives in one’s formative years is essential to building both a good technique and reliable instinct. There is an interesting piece on cricbuzz.com which addresses the coaching issues at greater length but the main point is that good habits have to be inculcated early on as the basis for any potential success when up against the best in Test cricket.
Having said that, any of the world’s top batsmen would have been tested by that 45 minutes from Cummins, Starc and Scott Boland at the end of day two at the MCG. As would any of us from previous generations.I don't think the emphasis on shot-playing can be blamed for all of it, either. All three of the top test sides (NZ, Aus & India) play a relatively attacking style of test cricket. It can work, if players have the underlying ability to judge when to play the attacking shot. That's a matter of confidence as well as ability, and confidence has often been an issue among England sides. Back in the 90s, the initial solution was as simple as appointing a captain who gave players a kicking if they accepted defeat instead of going down fighting. Nasser Hussain turned the attitude round and the results followed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59825697
For the fifth time in six tours, they have lost the urn at the earliest available opportunity, this time in record-breakingly swift fashion.
It took just 852.3 overs, the smallest quantity of cricket ever required for Australia to win the Ashes at home after a third Test lasting just 180 overs and four balls - also making this the earliest any team has ever lost a five-Test series.
England's openers finished with a collective tally of 14 ducks in 2021, a record by a frankly humiliating margin.
Over the previous 10 years of Test cricket, England's openers blobbed out 27 times in 121 matches, an average of one opener-duck per 4.5 Tests.
Whoever gets the gig, Ed Smith or his like need to be reappointed to a selector/scout role to keep an eye out for emerging talent
Website says entrants will be informed shortly.
Ballot closed 12th November.
They may well out their names forward, but it undermines the incumbent if they're positioning themselves for his job. After all, I imagine they wouldn't want it to happen to them.