Clearly the highlight of this weeks’ Twitter round-up. (Yes, we do still write that.)
Our other favourite bit is Tino Best’s caption to a photo of himself where he claims he was bowling ‘thunderbolts’ and suggests that everyone nearby is looking on ‘in amazement’. To be totally clear, this is a caption written by Tino Best, about Tino Best.
It’s hard not to love him.1 Appeal
My baby was due to enter the world on February 18th, just a few days into the tournament. Not ideal timing, but at least he wasn’t interrupting The Ashes.
In the end, he was late. Five days after the scheduled start of his innings, at risk of being timed out, things began to stir. We were just getting used to the comfortable preliminary round, experimenting with fielding positions and fine-tuning the batting order, when the situation suddenly became a bit more serious. Flashing lights, pained expressions, screaming and shouting – we were now well and truly into the knockout stages.
You can do all the net practice you like, but out in the middle it’s a different matter entirely. I proved myself a useful partner at home, picking up singles and keeping the partnership ticking along, but once in hospital I froze. All padded up with nowhere to go, I stood paralysed at the non-striker’s end as my darling wife held firm in the face of an almighty onslaught. Time and again she went down; the physio told her to retire hurt, to accept a runner, but she would not budge. She stared back at the bowler with a determined glare, took a deep breath and re-marked her guard.
The moment of triumph, when it came, was strangely muted. Despite having had my eyes fixed on this life-changing landmark for so long, I hadn’t really considered how I might react when it finally arrived. Should I look to the heavens and thank the Almighty? Get down on my knees and kiss the pitch? Or embark on a lap of honour, arms aloft, twirling my bat to the four corners of the stadium?
Nothing has been the same since. They say you never forget your first – a monkey off the back, an unsullied glimpse of a dazzling future, your place in the world secure forever. There will undoubtedly be low points – dips in form, tantrums, bad decisions, horrific collapses, entire days lost to bad weather. But a platform has been set, and now we must make hay while our son shines.18 Appeals
Being as so many people seem to have very clear ideas about what England did wrong in the West Indies, we thought it might be nice to list some of the mistakes that England made that we too would have made – a kind of wilful spurning of hindsight, if you will.
We’d have selected Jonathan Trott
We like to believe that psychological problems can be overcome in the same way that technical problems can be overcome and that the correct response isn’t necessarily to automatically consign that player to the bin for evermore.
Trott made county runs last season, he made a double hundred on an A tour and the general feeling was that he seemed in decent physical and mental shape. He’s been one of the best batsmen England have had in recent years, England needed an opener and it didn’t seem so much of a stretch for a number three to open. So yes, we’d have picked him.
We’d have continued picking Jonathan Trott
Two Tests ain’t a lot of evidence on which to reject someone. Almost all batsmen are nervy at the start of their innings and Trott had at least managed a fifty in one of his four innings. We also wouldn’t have felt too great about bringing Adam Lyth in with an implicit message that he might only get four innings to prove himself. So yes, we’d have picked Trott for the third Test.
We’d have picked Moeen Ali
He’s been England’s main Test spinner and overall he’s done well. He was fit, he’d played some cricket; James Tredwell had done okay, but he only ever seemed like a stopgap. So yes, we’d have picked Moeen Ali and thinking about it, we’d probably make that mistake again. It still seems unlikely that he’d bowl so badly in the West Indies’ third Test run chase.
And what else?
We’d also have made a bunch of terrible decisions that England didn’t make, only we sadly can’t prove the stupidity of them because they never played out in real life.
We wouldn’t have played Gary Ballance at number three, for example, because we wouldn’t have put him that high last summer.
We’d have left Stuart Broad out of the first Test team and he doubtless wouldn’t have returned to take 4-61 in the second.
We’d have picked Rob Key.
We’d have had fielders in ridiculous attacking positions and conceded shitloads of runs.
We’d have brought Jimmy back on when it wasn’t the time to bring Jimmy back on.
We’d have bowled Trott in every innings.
We’d have bowled Ballance in every innings.
We’d have burst into tears when Nasser Hussain interviewed us.
We’d have eaten too much at breakfast and been unable to concentrate properly during the match.
We’d have bollocked/not bollocked/encouraged/challenged/ignored Jimmy Anderson before his second Test clinching spell. We’re not sure which worked, or even if anybody did anything. But whatever someone did or didn’t do, make no mistake, we wouldn’t or would have done it. Plus we’d have done and not done a bunch of other critical things, undermining England’s chances.
Without the benefit of hindsight, it’s important that we face up to our mistakes.41 Appeals
Our proper Jonathan Trott retirement piece is over on All Out Cricket. Other than that, here are two old posts which sum up different aspects of a top, top player.
The first focuses on the sheer relentlessness of the man – surely his defining quality. If we have a happier memory of not watching cricket than going to bed with Jonathan Trott batting in an Ashes Test Down Under and waking up to find him still doing so, we don’t know what it is.
The second is an appreciation of his bowling, which we’ll miss almost as much as his batting. Many a tense moment has been marked by a ‘get Trott on’ tweet from this writer. You can’t beat a bit of dobble at a crucial juncture in an innings.5 Appeals
We can’t understand it. It seems such an obvious solution. Captain Hindsight wouldn’t have made all the obvious mistakes that Peter Moores made.
Maybe England’s loss would have been embarrassing if the opposition had been as mediocre as they were infamously branded, but this West Indies side seemed to us to be much better than that. They’ll surely make real progress until their next internecine conflict, at which point all the good work will be undone. They’re not dissimilar to England in that regard.
There are the usual calls for revolution, but England tend to make significant changes after every high profile defeat. There comes a point where it’s change itself which is holding back the side.
Moeen Ali should never have played
Moeen Ali was getting a lot of criticism yesterday. He certainly bowled badly – self-consciously, perhaps – but it’s also true that spinners get harshly judged for failing on a turning pitch in the final innings in a way that an opening bowler failing to exploit the new ball does not. You’re very alone and there’s no chance to make up for poor bowling later on. Moeen is also unfortunate enough to be an all-rounder. An all-rounder gets twice as many chances to fail.
After the match, Nasser Hussain conducted an interview with Peter Moores in which he looked like he was about to drive a broken bottle into the England coach’s neck at any moment. He asked about the absence of Adil Rashid. We’ve been desperate to see Rashid play, but not because we feel absolute certainty that he’d have won the game for England. The question therefore seemed to amount to: “Would you have preferred to have been slagged off for selecting Adil Rashid?”
Give us what we want
As George Dobell said the other day, hindsight is Twenty20. A lot of the people moaning now are those who were previously moaning about the absence of Stokes, Moeen and Buttler – players who are all now in the side. Whenever England lose, the reason, to them, is obvious. But we can never dip into alternative universes to find out what would have happened had things been done differently. Only the coach finds his decisions exposed by reality. Some were good, some were bad, but we at least can’t rouse ourself to outrage. If nothing else, we hugely enjoyed this Test match, last day and all.
Michael Vaughan, the King of Populist Opinion, has expressed an interest in the new director of cricket job. Doubtless he’ll reject it because they didn’t create quite the right job description and will add this to his list of obvious problems with obvious solutions, but maybe England should kowtow to him.
They should give Vaughan the job and let him select the side. He can even put it to a public vote on Twitter to ensure it remains populist enough (“Fav for Plunkett, RT for Wood”). Give him complete control. Let him decide everything so that when England lose we can all agree to stop whinging on, pretending that the solutions were always obvious. Maybe then people can get back to enjoying Test matches, win or lose, without revelling in the latter as being some sort of proof in the flawlessness of their world view.27 Appeals
Wickets advance a Test match. Yesterday therefore had all the meaningful action of two days’ cricket – 18 wickets – constricted into one.
Jerome Taylor kicked things off, but it was Jimmy Anderson who enjoyed himself to the full with six wickets for 42 runs off 12.4 overs. In the comments to yesterday’s post, we suggested that the ECB might like to start researching ghola technology with a view to opening the bowling with a James Anderson in perpetuity.
The main side effect of wickets being so cheap is the impact on the exchange rate. Runs in this match are becoming more valuable by the second. But how do you get them? The glory of Test cricket is that you can inch along for an entire day like Alastair Cook or slice sixes back over the bowler’s head like Jermaine Blackwood and both approaches are equally valid.
England are 39-5, just 107 ahead. It seems like they need quite a lot more, but who knows, maybe they already have enough. One decent partnership could decide this Test. That fragility and uncertainty is what will make all that follows to watchable.25 Appeals
Restart the clock.
This may have been all of 10 runs more than he made just a handful of Tests ago, but it rewrites a tired script. Suddenly people can’t fall back on ‘hasn’t made a hundred since…’ and so they’re instead forced to look at the facts. Those facts are that Alastair Cook has been scoring quite a lot of runs in Test cricket of late.
Cook knew that the fifties didn’t really count though. He knew their value would only be seen in the light of a three-figure score. The man has more grit than a resurfaced rural road. Having painstakingly worked his way past fifty five times in his previous eight Test innings, he started again from nought. Again he wrung painfully deliberate runs out of this West Indian attack. Again he put the hours in.
He nurdled, worked and occasionally hoicked it to leg; he ignored the ball when it could be ignored; and when he called a team-mate through for a single that was never there, he ensured it was a homicidal single, not a suicidal single. He did everything in his power to ensure he reached three figures and for once, no-one stepped in at the last minute to deny him.
It meant a lot to him. You could tell. He even let fly a huge, bestial roar.15 Appeals
As in ‘returned’. He hasn’t got ankylosing spondylitis or anything.
We’ve always liked Jerome Taylor. He tends to bowl quickly, full and straight and that tends to mean more runs and more wickets, which if you think about it is pretty much how a Test match progresses.
If this were a five Test series, we suspect that Taylor would become increasingly bothersome for England, producing that ‘history repeating’ phenomenon where a batsman keeps getting out to the same sort of delivery and starts to question himself, his technique and other important things, such as whether the inclusion of mustard in a recent batch of jerk chicken paste was an accident worth repeating.
But it’s not a five Test series. It’s a three Test series where Taylor missed the middle one. As such, he’ll bowl well and then everyone in England will forget about him and instead obsess about whichever Australian bowler takes most wickets in this summer’s Ashes.
Frustrated with this lack of recognition, Taylor will get himself into a drunken scuffle. But he’s such a class act, he’ll wait until a very, very distant relation has first got the Taylors in credit by winning some sort of award.15 Appeals
Let’s exploit this gap in England’s Test series to get up to speed with this year’s County Championship and the very top of the table specifically. Currently, that means Sussex.
In their first five innings of this year, the individual members of Sussex’s top five passed 50 just four times between them. Sussex have, at points in their various innings, been 128-5, 71-6 and 171-9. Despite this, they won their first two matches. It is therefore worth taking a look at their bowlers.
Sussex have attracted attention for assembling an intriguing seam attack for 2015. Ajmal Shahzad and Tymal Mills are, respectively, an England reject and an England hopeful. However, both pale into insignifance compared to the might of Indooropilly High School’s finest alumnus, Steve Magoffin, a man who nets County Championship wickets like an eastern tropical Pacific tuna fisherman nets dolphins. Only he doesn’t release them afterwards. He hangs onto them – albeit only in statistical form.
That said, it’s actually Shahzad who’s been leading the way. He has 20 wickets at 18.25, Magoffin has 10 at 33.10, while Mills seems to be attracting column inches for every wicket he fails to take. He has three at 45.00.
Sussex are top by five points, but second-placed Durham have a game in hand and also just beat them. Durham are another seam-centric side and while these early season games are just as important as those later in the season, they do perhaps give a somewhat misleading picture of who the main contenders are likely to be.5 Appeals
This is probably the weirdest England squad we can remember. It’s not quite a B-team, but nor is it a real A-Team. It’s a 2010 cinematic rehash A-Team.
Some of the names are about as familiar as that of Quinton ‘Rampage’ Jackson as well (the guy who was passed off as B.A. in that film). Lewis Gregory has a good record, but quite a low profile for someone just picked for England, while Zafar Ansari is best known for being a Cambridge type who once bowled Kevin Pietersen. We think we missed the bit where Ansari thrust himself into the limelight and demanded inclusion, but he did celebrate his call-up by getting himself run out off the fifth ball of Surrey’s innings today, which certainly hints that he’s got the right stuff to be an England one-day cricketer.
Most of the other additions are the players you were reading about as being potential miracle solutions back when everyone had an opinion about how rubbish England were: Sam Billings, Jason Roy, James Vince and David Willey. It’s certainly a bold, dynamic squad. A crowd-pleasing one. Or at least it is at the announcement stage.
Just three of England’s World Cup squad have been retained – James Taylor, Alex Hales and Steven Finn – and two of those are recent additions who appear rather more at home in the ‘brave new world’ circle on the Venn diagram. Set against this backdrop, Tim Bresnan suddenly appears the most leftfield pick of all.
England’s Incredible World Cup of Unparalleled Shod is just one of the reasons why there are so many surprise inclusions. There’s also the fact that it’s a one-off match scheduled when England’s Test cricketers have been playing in a match on the other side of the planet just three days before. It’s tempting to suggest that Ireland being the opposition might play a part too, but that’s probably not true. The last flicker of complacency was surely extinguished back in Australia.
England’s captain, Eoin Morgan, is missing the match to play in the IPL. It’s tempting to wonder whether this agreement has prevented him from being dropped. The Irishman seems to have benefited from extended media and public goodwill of late simply through his ability to avoid being Alastair Cook. The moral of the story is that if you’re going to be an ineffectual captain who doesn’t score runs, at least be an ineffectual captain who doesn’t score runs who bats aggressively.17 Appeals