Why have England won only 2 out 8 test series since the Ashes win in 2005 ?

[Lillian Thomson]

It's a suggestion, and there's far less in it than some might like to think IMO - it's basically an easy way to avoid saying "they weren't as good as I thought they were". Something the Bothams and Hussains are particularly in need of.

So are you saying or not that anyone could accuse any of Bell, Harmison, Geraint Jones, Giles, Vaughan, Simon Jones or Trescothick of resting on laurels? If so, how is that?

I said quite clearly that I don't know if they did or not, and neither can you say for "certain" that they didn't..........unless you're a stalker that followed them around.

 

[wpdavid]

"You gotta dance with who brung ya"

Since the 2005 Ashes using this model Id have used Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard, Caddick, Tremlett and Anderson. Lewis, Sidebottom, Saj and Plunkett would not have played.

Excuse the snipping - it's purely a space thing.

Only to say fair enough mate & well put. Whether I agree with your final choices is irrelevant.

 

[Goughy]

Excuse the snipping - it's purely a space thing.

Only to say fair enough mate & well put. Whether I agree with your final choices is irrelevant.

TBF, I dont mind different choices as long as there was a plan that is defined and players knew their roles and the chppong and changing was kept t a minimum.

Out of interest, who would your experienced International/County seamer be that could slot in seamlessly for a game or 2 when required?

And who would be your young seamer given space to develop when a long term injury happens?

 

[Richard]

I said quite clearly that I don't know if they did or not, and neither can you say for "certain" that they didn't..........unless you're a stalker that followed them around.

I don't need to follow Vaughan, Trescothick, Simon Jones or Giles around to know they were injured\ill for most of the time after summer 2005, though.

Nor do I need to follow Harmison or Geraint Jones around to know that they were just never that good ITFP, it was the same before, during and after Ashes 2005. They might have rested on laurels, but not doing so would not have made them Test-class cricketers. Nor do I need to follow Bell around to know he did sod-all of note during Ashes 2005.

 

[Goughy]

This is an interesting standpoint of yours, and I may have taken a leaf out of the Fuller handbook and put 2 and 2 together to make 16, but you can correct me if so: you seem to think Lewis is\was more likely to make a Test-class bowler than Sidebottom. I cannot understand that. Sidebottom has a few extra mph and a few extra cm height, and has (not surprisingly) hence amounted to the more consistent bowler (Lewis has many times started a season brilliantly then got more expensive as it has worn-on, whereas Sidebottom is usually still going in August and September).

As I say - correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no way I'd ever in the last 3 or 4 years have taken Lewis ahead of Sidebottom.

I would have taken Lewis over Sidebottom. Lewis may lack the extra height or kph but he is the more penatrative bowler and capable of taking a sackful when bowling well.

That is needed at Test level. I also think that he uses the swinging ball more expertly than Sidebottom and considering that is boths primary skill Id say that is a big plus.

Lewis would have been far more likely to run through a Test line-up than Sidebotom and you have to do that to win games.

In bad games would Sidebottom take 2-120 compared to Lewis 0-140, probably but you are not going to win either.

Lewis would give the greater chance of winning games ahead of Sidebottom.

Cant say there is too much in it and you are probably right that Sidebottom maybe more consistent, but Lewis would do more damage when on form.

Now, after all that, I probably wouldnt have picked either.

 

[wpdavid]

TBF, I dont mind different choices as long as there was a plan that is defined and players knew their roles and the chppong and changing was kept t a minimum.

Out of interest, who would your experienced International/County seamer be that could slot in seamlessly for a game or 2 when required?

And who would be your young seamer given space to develop when a long term injury happens?

My turn to be put on the spot

I have real problems with Caddick, which means that I may be treating him unfairly now, but there were so many times when he barely showed up that playing him for a couple of games would strike me as pointless. Going back to when all this started (May 2006), I'd have picked Lewis vs SL. Mainly that's because he'd run through them for the 'A' side a week or so beforehand, but his FC record supports his selection anyway IIRC. If he looked way out of his depth after a few games, I'd like to think I'd have thought of Sidebottom. I know there's a certain element of hindsight here, but in my defence I did mention him before he was called up against WI. Honestly! A quick scan of the county averages would have reminded me of him 12 months previosuly, if it was my job to pick the side.

As for the youngster, that's harder. As you said previously, none of Mahmood, Plunkett or Tremlett have a FC record that demanded selection. Ditto Broad. Against SL last summer, I suppose I'd have gone for the two oldies until Harmsion was fit for the Pakistan series & then keep whichever of Lewis & Sidebottom had looked best. Anderson was crocked for most of last summer wasn't he? Moving on to the ashes, Lewis or SB would have played instead of Anderson/Mahmood. No, I wouldn't have fancied them either, but you know that they could do a limited job for you.

I know I haven't answered your 2nd question. Based purely on what they did for England, if really pushed, I'd have picked Mahmood. I know that's inviting all sorts of derision, but I don't think he's any worse than Harmison was when first picked and he did occasionally show glimpses of potential, even if there were also long spells of garbage. As I said, a bit like GBH when first picked. Tremlett just strikes me as too anodyne to be a threat and Plunkett's performances this year were even worse than Mahmood's. Admittedly that's all hindsight, but following my answer to question 1, none of them would have been picked last summer.

Here another question for you. Why do you think Plunkett & Panesar's performances have actually deteriorated since they first played for England? Panesar did better against SL in England than in SL, which shouldn't have been the case. And plunkett didn't initally look nearly as bad as he was against WI. Any thoughts?

 

[Goughy]

I'd have picked Mahmood. I know that's inviting all sorts of derision, but I don't think he's any worse than Harmison was when first picked and he did occasionally show glimpses of potential, even if there were also long spells of garbage. As I said, a bit like GBH when first picked.

Here another question for you. Why do you think Plunkett & Panesar's performances have actually deteriorated since they first played for England? Panesar did better against SL in England than in SL, which shouldn't have been the case. And plunkett didn't initally look nearly as bad as he was against WI. Any thoughts?

Ill address the 2nd part in a bit. However, I saw nothing from Saj to make me think he could be a decent county bowler let alone a Test bowler.

Regards to Harmison. Harmison had done more than Saj when picked. Harmison had two 50+ wicket English summers before being picked. The best by Saj before getting selected was 23 wickets at over 43.

In fact, his best is still only 36 wickets in a season.

 

[wpdavid]

Ill address the 2nd part in a bit. However, I saw nothing from Saj to make me think he could be a decent county bowler let alone a Test bowler.

Regards to Harmison. Harmison had done more than Saj when picked. Harmison had two 50+ wicket English summers before being picked. The best by Saj before getting selected was 23 wickets at over 43.

In fact, his best is still only 36 wickets in a season.

I'm purely basing it on what I saw of them in their earliest games for England.

I don't know how many full seasons Mahmood has played - probably none - so there's reasons why he's never taken over 50 in a season, beyond the obvious.

But as I said earlier, I'm not overinterested in nitpicking. Whichever of the kids I voted for could be slaughtered and, as I said, none of them would have played in 2006 had I been in charge, so it's academic.

 

[Richard]

Here another question for you. Why do you think Plunkett & Panesar's performances have actually deteriorated since they first played for England? Panesar did better against SL in England than in SL, which shouldn't have been the case. And plunkett didn't initally look nearly as bad as he was against WI. Any thoughts?

Regarding Plunkett, I think it's pretty simple: people rarely think a young bowler looks out-and-out bad when they first play, provided they bowl upwards of 80mph. Sure, if he'd bowled like he did against West Indies they might possibly have done. Naturally, I was saying "why the hell have they picked him?" but that's probably no great surprise to too many. Why he bowled so execrably (alongside Harmison) in that West Indies series I don't know, but as I've said a few times - I've never seen bowling that bad in a club match. It was a rather freakish instance really. Probably best treated in isolation.

Regarding MSP, he simply hasn't bowled well in Sri Lanka. At Trent Bridge in 2006, he bowled damn well indeed. The wicket at Trent Bridge probably had more pace and bounce than the ones at any of Galle, Kandy and SSC have, but when there's as much turn as there was you'd hope a spinner could bowl better than MSP has. Run through a side? Possibly not, that'd be asking a bit much on such slow surfaces. Get 1-150? Certainly not, you'd hope for better than that. Nonetheless, the fielding has obviously not been helpful, and he's beaten the edge plenty often enough too.

 

[GIMH]

Because they're not French? Isn't that what you want to hear?

gun Matteh, haha

 

[GIMH]

It's all about the bowling really, isn't it? Although Trescothick and Strauss have lost form, Vaughan has come back in after an extended absence through injury, and Cook has come to the fore.

Your middle order is by no means poor, though I'd prefer to see Bell at no higher than 4 under any circumstances. It's also time now for him to really start stamping a name for himself as a senior test-class batsman. In form, if you had Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood as your top 6 it would be a pretty good line up. Then Prior and Flintoff (sorry, I just dont think he's a test-class number 6 -has to be 7 or lower) to round out your top eight. Monty plays as spinner, leaving Hoggard and one other for the pace bowling spot.

So much depends on Flintoff. You CAN get by with 4 front line bowlers (Flintoff as one) if he is fit and firing. Then you have Collingwood and Pietersen with the part-time medium and off spin stuff that Symonds has done for Australia. By batting Flintoff at 7 or 8 you lessen his requirements to perform like a genuine test batsman and allow him to concertrate more on his bowling. Imo his bowling is more consistently match-winning for you than his batting will be, because of the nature of his batting game. He's hardly Kallis-like technically and will always be a bit and miss.

For the last fast bowling spot, well it's a quandry isn't it? Assume Flintoff and Hoggard as your new ball bowlers, you can take Sidebottom in as the third seamer (I must say he's proven better than I thought he would be, but I'm still hoping like hell that he plays the next Ashes series) when conditions mandate two swing bowlers, or you can run with a third seamer who offer more pace/ bounce when conditions warrant it - say a Harmison or someone of his type - tall and bouncy.

I guess what all this highlights is just how important Flintoff is. Of course, Simon Jones would be a wonderful asset, assuming he can bowl like he did in 05 again. There's got to be a big question mark on that though, so really, to me it's all about Fred. Without him the side needs some serious re-jigging in order to reach the right balance.

To me, it's his absence and limited output which is really inhibiting the side.

I think this is a great post, shame you took it back!!

The only thing I would say is, though, (and I don't have any stats backing me up) is that Fred has always seemed to me to bowl better when bowling at first or second change, rather than taking the new ball. I think Michael Vaughan agrees.

 

[Shoggz]

I had drifted away from the game at the time so can't remember, but what was the feeling about the team after the hammering they took in the 3rd test against Sri Lanka 4 years ago?

Was the general concensus that they would be rolled over easily by the West Indies?

As an England fan, I'm hoping history repeats itself and we play as well against New Zealand as we did against the Windies!

As a pessimist, I think New Zealand have their best chance currently of turning us over.

 

[wpdavid]

I had drifted away from the game at the time so can't remember, but what was the feeling about the team after the hammering they took in the 3rd test against Sri Lanka 4 years ago?

Was the general concensus that they would be rolled over easily by the West Indies?

As an England fan, I'm hoping history repeats itself and we play as well against New Zealand as we did against the Windies!

As a pessimist, I think New Zealand have their best chance currently of turning us over.

IIRC we weren't over confident. WI's batsmen had done well in SA, and our attack looked in no sort of state to do better than Ntini, Pollock & co. Hoggard had been dropped midseries in SL, Harmison had flown home to the sound of mutterings about attitude, Jones hadn't played since Brisbane & Flintoff wasn't taking wickets in those days. As for the batting, we figured we should be OK most of the time in the Caribbean, but we also knew that we were capable of collapsing often enough to lose the series. And although WI were feeble away from home, they usually competed in the Caribbean. 2 or 3 high scoring draws and a home win when we collapsed was definitely on the cards.

Ultimately, all turned out well because Fletcher's selections for the attack were spot on. As has been discussed elsewhere, Moores faces the same challenge in February.

 

[Richard]

IIRC we weren't over confident. WI's batsmen had done well in SA, and our attack looked in no sort of state to do better than Ntini, Pollock & co. Hoggard had been dropped midseries in SL, Harmison had flown home to the sound of mutterings about attitude, Jones hadn't played since Brisbane & Flintoff wasn't taking wickets in those days. As for the batting, we figured we should be OK most of the time in the Caribbean, but we also knew that we were capable of collapsing often enough to lose the series. And although WI were feeble away from home, they usually competed in the Caribbean. 2 or 3 high scoring draws and a home win when we collapsed was definitely on the cards.

One thing that wasn't expected, of course, was the relatively lively surfaces for the first three Tests.

And West Indies' home form hadn't been impressive for a little while, really - lost to South Africa (2-1, but it should have been 3-1 at the very least) in 2001, beat India and lost to New Zealand in 2002, lost heavily to Australia (3-1) in 2003, and were well prepared to lose to us in 2004. It could hardly have been worse than their away form though.

Flintoff just started to take wickets in Sri Lanka, don't forget, but there was no indication it'd continue.

 

[Richard]

I think this is a great post, shame you took it back!!

The only thing I would say is, though, (and I don't have any stats backing me up) is that Fred has always seemed to me to bowl better when bowling at first or second change, rather than taking the new ball. I think Michael Vaughan agrees.

Certainly Sidebottom will benefit far more from the new-ball than will Flintoff.

Would always have Hoggard, Sidebottom, Flintoff personally. Always. Flintoff is dangerous new ball or old.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Cricket goes in cycles.

England played some very good cricket leading into the 2005 Ashes. The team peaked with that Test series victory.

Yeah, but the more pertinent question is why? We had a relatively young side (certainly when compared to the vanquished Australians) and I personally thought it would kick on. As it transpires the 2005 Ashes was the zenith rather than a platform to build from. We've had rotten luck with injuries which has shown up our lack of quality in depth, but we've still managed to underperform (in Pakistan in 05/06, against Sri Lanka in 06, in Australia in 06/07, against India in 07 and in the current series) where we might reasonably have expected to perform better than we did with the players available.

I think serious questions have to be asked about our mental resiliance sometimes and, moreover, our overall philosophy. Collingwood after today's efforts,

"Results haven't been great but from within the dressing room we do believe we are moving in the right direction"

Hmm. Well as long as it looks all right in the dressing room what's a 418-run first-innings deficit between friends?

Regarding MSP, he simply hasn't bowled well in Sri Lanka. At Trent Bridge in 2006, he bowled damn well indeed. The wicket at Trent Bridge probably had more pace and bounce than the ones at any of Galle, Kandy and SSC have, but when there's as much turn as there was you'd hope a spinner could bowl better than MSP has. Run through a side? Possibly not, that'd be asking a bit much on such slow surfaces. Get 1-150? Certainly not, you'd hope for better than that. Nonetheless, the fielding has obviously not been helpful, and he's beaten the edge plenty often enough too.

Vic Marks said on TMS that Monty isn't enough of a "thinking" bowler for him and that variations don't come naturally to him. It's posible he might benefit from a captain like Hussain who was rather more proactive than MPV.

Interesting.

 

[Richard]

It's really funny, because there are times when he comes across as being the least thinking bowler in history, and others when he comes across as having a better understanding of the science than anyone in history.

Usually, of course, he looks like he has the understanding when he's doing well, and not when he doesn't. Seriously, some of the comments he's made suggest to me he undestands spin very well indeed. I'm sure Hussain might have done a better job with him, as it's hardly any great secret that I've always rated Hussain > Vaughan as a captain (even if Vaughan does have a better understanding of the psyche of seamers ). But I do think MSP has a very good understanding of the science of spin - it just looks like he doesn't when he's not bowling terribly well.

 

[FBU]

Goughy I wouldn't have Anderson as a stand in. I would have bowlers who are the finished articles like Caddick and Lewis. Anderson was brought into Tests without hardly any first class experience with bowlers like Harmison and Hoggard who were still finding their feet and really couldn't give him much help. Had it been Gough and Caddick he might have learnt as he went along. Much like Donald and Pollock giving Ntini all the support when he was he first came into the side

Before playing Test cricket a young bowler needs at least 2 full seasons in county cricket.

Apart from his 7 consecutive Tests when he started and was averaging under 30.00 he had missed 4, played 1, missed 8, played 3, missed 3, played 1, missed 13, played 1, missed 7, played 2, missed 4, played 4, missed 2 over 5 years. Then there is the 12th man business. There is no way a young bowler who doesn't know his game is going to have any success if he is in and out of the side in his early twenties. He had a good first Test against India this summer, then a bad one but at least he was still there for the third Test to get it right. If every time Harmison and Hoggard had an indifferent Test and got dropped they would struggle to have decent figures.

Then for about half of his Tests he hasn't been able to benefit by getting the new ball to make use of his swing. In ODIs he has done much better not having to worry about his place. In county cricket he does well with both the red and white balls so the only reason he doesn't seem to be excelling in Tests can't be down to the colour of the ball but being in and out of the Test side.

A good idea would have been for bowlers like Anderson, Plunkett, Mahmood and Broad to be in the Lions squad where they would go on tours to Asia, Australia and the West Indies year after year. If they kept the same players in the Lions they would be able to build a strong A side (who would also be playing county cricket in the summer ) who then could have been picked to fill in for injuries in the Test team.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If it hadn't been for injuries it's possible that only Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff, Jones and Anderson would have played Test Cricket in the last two years. Hoggard and Flintoff are acceptable Test bowlers in any conditions and the others will do well in England but are fodder on a good wicket overseas.

 

[Richard]

And on a good wicket in England too, really.