Cricket has come a long way since I started playing and watching in the 1970’s. For the record I was a better watcher than player, although I had my moments in the Under 18’s Staffordshire Leagues once we moved from Yorkshire, but studying in America, a college in the UK that played little cricket, and then work consigned my participation to watching, and not very often at that, especially over the last 15 or so years when we were based in Spain. I last picked up a bat (a SS Jumbo for anyone interested, a departure from my normal Grey Nicolls bats – Regular, Single Scoop and Double Scoop) – in the early 1980’s, although I did look at one of the new Grey Nicolls bats at Old Trafford last summer where they were making them.
They have most certainly changed, but then again I am old. I first batted wearing green spiked gloves and a Len Hutton bat passed on by my father!
It’s not just the cricket and the equipment that has changed though. The coverage is totally different. Sky Sports have made a huge impact and it is hard to think of a better collective of ex players that do a better job of covering their sport. Of course the nature of the game helps: technical, natural breaks, plenty of opportunities to analyse, so long gone are the days of watching with the sound down and Test Match Special on the radio …… although it has to be said that Test Match Special has more than stood the test of time and has admirably managed to combine the ‘old school’ style with the modern ‘gizmos’ of social media, video, podcasts et al.
I think the biggest change though has been through the use of social media, podcasts, blogs and the such by the enthusiast. No longer are cricket fans left bereft of anyone to discuss the game with. 24/7 there is always a tweet, a post, a soundbite or a clip to be discussed.
Recently two topics have taken up much of the airwaves, or whatever the equivalent is in social media land: the possibility of four day tests, and the make up of the England Test Team. I should add the Hundred to that list, but I can hardly bring myself to mention it never mind write about it, but I will in the near future, along with my thoughts on Four Day Test, although I suspect you can work out my views on both: pointless and stupid!
Today I am going to take a look at make up of the England Cricket Team.
No surprise I am more Old School than Indoor School, but I am far from being a luddite (I hope!!).
I have been interested in the debate as to who opens the batting. Is starting to look like after what feels like years of famine, we now have three options to feast upon. Burns and Sibley are arguably in pole position having got 100’s, being the initial preferred pairing, and is always hard to argue against a Left/Right combination. That said Crawley is providing a reliable and stable base along with Sibley, they are maturing individually and as a pair, and possession used to be 9/10ths of the law. I hadn’t give this much thought until the Cricket Debate panel all seemed to be unanimous that Burns would automatically walk back in. Why? I shouted, literally as I am of an age when doing that is allowed. Now if Burns was Cook with multiple tests and hundreds against his name I would accept the logic of experience and all that but if Crawley and Sibley ain’t broke, why fix it!? What message would that send out regards future places and players. Keep them on their toes, let players know that if they perform well they keep their place, so for me as things stand I would open with Crawley and Sibley.
Now at this stage I should probably clarify something that I should have said at the start. I am not selecting a team for a specific game, tour, type of pitch etc. I am 100% with the modern way of squad and rotations, of horses for courses, but you have to start somewhere and that is what I am doing. Picking an 11 that I would then review depending on form, conditions etc, but as a template 11 this is mine.
Number three has long been as big an issue as the openers, and with England’s recent red ball strategy been based on a solid foundation for the flair players to exploit – actually I will pause her to point out the obvious i.e. this is not a new theory it’s a theory that is as old as Test Cricket itself – being ‘sod all’ for 3 after two hours has been a recurring issue.
Denly is OK and has done much of what has been asked of him i.e. bat time, but he has no big scores to his name, looks less and less likely to get any, and age not really on his side. My choice at three would be Bairstow. Yes, he has had a bad run of form, but I also think that along with Ali he has suffered the most from not knowing what his position is. He has scored hundreds for England, he has a proven track record of successfully adapting to new demands, so I would give him a run at it. After all it’s the only way he will get to improve as what idiot thought it made sense to rest him so he could concentrate on his red ball batting when there was no red ball cricket to be played!?
Four is Root, simple as that.
Five is Stokes, simple as that.
Six I am more than happy to see Pope continue as he doing nothing to not warrant continued investment.
Seven is probably more debatable. Made easier for me by the fact that Butler is not performing and for the sake of consistency and fairness to Bairstow he needs to be told the same: go away and concentrate on your red ball batting. Only in his case I don’t think he should. He is destined to be the next White Ball Captain so I would tell him to go and get as much White Ball experience as he can around the World, try and get some gigs as Captain as well, as I think he of far more value to England over the rest of his career as a White Ball specialist. I would like to see Foakes at 7, not that I think any of our batsmen/keepers couldn’t do the job, but because I want as many people as possible to be concentrating on their primary skill.
Can I just say here that I am still of the (old) school of thought that to be called an All Rounder you have to be good enough to be picked for either discipline alone, which for me makes only Stokes and Ali genuine All Rounders
Now we get to the Bowlers, and to be fair fitness permitting we are blessed with a great selection. But let’s look at the fitness issue for a moment. Anderson, Archer, Woakes and Wood are all great bowlers, and all have an injury/robustness question mark. That said, bowling is by far the area that lends itself towards rotation. Also I think England need to learn the lesson of not having a succession plan for openers, and so alternating Broad and Anderson is an opportunity to be considered.
By preference I would also want as much variety as reasonable so at eight I am going with Curran for his left arm and ability to make things happen.
Nine I am going with Bess because he has done nothing wrong, has shown a willingness to learn and I think will only get better.
I guess it sort of gets ‘interesting’ here and the reality is that you could pick any two from four. Ideally I would like to pick Wood and Archer as they have the raw pace and age on their side but I think discarding the experience of both Broad and Anderson would be reckless, and the injury records of Wood and Archer make that decision too high risk at this time.
Ten ……. Archer
Eleven …… Broad
But I would seriously consider alternating with Wood and Anderson to extend two careers and protect two careers from injury.
Happy to debate this.