We got there in the end
First test, Lord’s : England beat Bangladesh by 8 wickets
The problem with playing Bangladesh is that if we thrash them, no-one’s impressed, because – well, it’s only Bangladesh. And if we don’t, we’re deemed to have failed, by dint of not thrashing Bangladesh. In this series, what does success look like? How could the team’s performance make us feel excited or at least satisfied? It’s hard to say, but it seems unlikely the first test will have boosted the professional standing of many Englishmen, apart from Steven Finn and the Lord’s dressing room signwriter, who’s always a very busy man when the Tigers are in town.
Test cricket badly needs Bangladesh to get better, quickly. Encouragingly, their batting now looks way more stylish and robust than it ever has before. Let’s hope they find some proper seam bowlers as soon as possible – not that ours, Finn apart, were much better in this match. Missing you already, Graham Onions.
We stand by our general criticism of the spectator experience at Lord’s, as evidenced by the ticketing shambles on Monday morning (see below). But the MCC redeemed themselves by inviting members of the crowd onto the playing field during the lunch break. BBC TMS rewarded them with the Brian Johnston Champagne Moment, and MCC chief executive Keith Bradshaw said “I think we should do it again”.
So they should, and the other test venues too. Until a decade ago, one of the greatest pleasures of attending the final day of a test was to walk onto the field after the match ended – you could go almost up to the square – and then gather in front of the pavilion for the presentations.
This cherished and long-standing tradition was abruptly brought to an end in 2001 after a number of ODIs were disrupted by Pakistan supporters who prematurely ran onto the pitch. Admittedly, it was very unpleasant at the time – but the strangely aggressive mood of that Natwest series has never been repeated, and yet the ECB and test venues have at no stage considered relaxing the ban. It is time to do so now. As spectators we resent the surly notices ringing the field’s perimeter, hectoring us with the severe penalties of pitch invasion. None of us want to cause trouble. We’d just like our treat reinstated.
Maxie Allen
Bangladesh’s batting and spin bowling looks encouraging but the seam bowling is very poor which will always hamstring their chances of even getting a draw. It is a shame that Mashrafe Mortaza’s body seems unable to support test cricket otherwise he would have provided a useful spearhead.
There was a lot of debate on TV and radio whether England should have played 5 bowlers – I thought that the bowlers looked a bit out of practice having being fed a constant diet of Twenty20 cricket. By the end of the match, both Anderson and Bresnan were looking more threatening and England should go into the match on Friday with the same team.
Re 4 or 5 bowlers, Steve James sums it up well in the Telegraph today:
“The root of the matter is that it is about quality not quantity. England mainly bowled a heap of tripe during this Test. Little wonder the attack looked toothless. You could have eight bowlers if you wanted, but if they bowled as badly as this as a unit then we’d still have a problem.”
Sorry guys, red flag to a bull. Scyld Berry wrote a very interesting piece in the telegraph (I think) on Saturday. It basically argued that statistically England have had no success whatsoever in the last forty years with 4 bowlers. All our success has been with a 5 man attack. Yes we bowled poorly at Lords, but only teams with world class operators can survive with 4 bowlers. The West Indies did it with Marshall, Garner, Walsh, Ambrose etc, and Australia with McGrath, Gillespie, and Warne. We don’t have bowlers anywhere near that class.
Generally, bowlers at 82mph do very little in test cricket, unless they swing it around corners like Hoggard did. You need to be up at 85-90mph to hurry the best batsmen. Whenever we play on good pitches, our 3 seamers soon get exhausted and start bowling medium pace to conserve energy (the sight of Finn bowling 80mph at Lords was extremely depressing). Even if the 5th bowler doesn’t bowl too much, it takes some of the pressure off the rest of the attack. Simon Jones was vital to our Ashes success in 2005, but he didn’t bowl that many overs. Ok, you could argue that Collingwood etc can fiddle around and bowl a bit, but his overs take the pressure off the batsmen and give them time to relax a bit mentally. Ever since the 2005 Ashes, and since the retirement of Warne, Australia have tried desperately to find an allrounder that enables them to play 5 bowlers … realising they have lost the Ashes twice because Eng’s attack had 5 … and was therefore more potent.
If Eng go to Old Trafford with the same team, I will cry. Bangladesh have a relatively strong batting line-up, but no bowling to speak of whatsoever. How therefore, is it sensible to pack the Eng team with batting? Prior is an adequate number 6 batsman (and he’s a better batsman than Flintoff, who predominantly batted 6 during his Eng career). Therefore, we shoud still have plenty of batting if we play 5 bowlers, esp with Swann and Broad at 8 & 9. All we a sacrificing is a slighly weaker number 7. I would say that it’s far more important to have a stronger 5-man attack and a slightly weak number 7 batsman, than a strong number 7 and Tim Bresnan opening the bowling as one of just 3 seamers.
If Eng go to Australia this winter and play just 4 bowlers, the Aussies will laugh at us for being negative and ignoring the advantage we had over them in 2005 and 2009. Yes, we got thrashed 5-0 in 2006/07, but we had no tail to speak of back then. In fact, Saj Mahmood batted 8 in a couple of the games … and they had Shane Warne back then. It’s time to get aggressive again. However, I have to admit that we are never going to agree on this.
On the one hand, it’s disappointing – and slightly worrying – that England struggled so much to beat Bangladesh in almost perfect English conditions.
On the other, this is the best I’ve seen the Tigers play, and England remain the only team with a 100% record against them.
Cricket against Bangladesh has been a farce since their induction to Test status. Batsmen filled their boots, bowlers tossed up exhibition bowling, crowds walked away in droves. It was something to be endured. There was nothing to be gained from it for anyone. Anything short of absolute annihilation was considered a failure for the opposition, and the relentless thrashings inculcated a losers’ mentality for the Bangladeshis – obvious during this Test when they were overtly negative in their field settings, and failed to recognize – or take advantage of – when they were actually doing rather well.
Someone has the be the worst Test team, obviously, but surely a basic requirement for the status is to be better than the level below. It’s hard to believe that, had they been entered in the Australian state competition, they wouldn’t have come a distant last.
Bangladesh holding Test status was embarrassing, and damaging for Test cricket. It devalued the brand. There were only two options;
i) Remove their Test status.
Clearly, this was never going to happen. They got their Test status as part of the Asian nations’ attempt to secure voting dominance, and move the centre of power to where they think it belongs. The BCCI don’t seem inclined towards giving up power and influence, so clearly excluding Bangladesh was a non-starter.
ii) Bangladesh had to improve.
Realistically, it was the only way forward, and they seem to have done that. They’re still comfortably the weakest Test team, but they’ve started to compete, and even win matches. They’ll be thrashed regularly for years to come, but if they get the proper support, in ten years people might take them seriously, and genuinely want to see them play. Look at the progression of Sri Lanka since the early eighties. Not so different. The Tigers scored nearly seven hundred runs in overcast, swinging conditions, and their performance is a cause of celebration, not consternation.
India brought them into Test cricket, and India (ab)use them to secure their dominance of the ICC. As such, it’s upon them to provide the money and support they need to live up to their status, and end their tenure as perennial whipping boys.
I didn’t watch all of the test, but I though conditions were pretty good for batting on day 4? The pitch didn’t deteriorate too much from what I’ve seen / heard / read. When the conditions were good for bowling we actually took wickets I think. Where we struggle, is taking wickets in good batting conditions.
I understand what you’re saying Tristan (the stuff about India etc is spot on) and I agree with what you’re saying – however, I’m not sure we can quite compare Bangladesh to Sri Lanka yet. I do not have the statistics handy, but I’m sure that Sri Lanka improved more rapidly than Bangladesh. Ditto New Zealand. I could be wrong, but I remember reading this somewhere.
I think Bangladesh just need to find some bowlers. Maybe they could find a demon spinner that chucks it? Nobody would ban him because the ICC would be desperate for Bangladesh to improve. Worked for Sri Lanka (oooooh, now that will ruffle a few feathers!)
Morgs,
Sri Lanka, India, NZ, et al, all progressed faster. However, they were all introduced to Test cricket at a more advanced stage in their development. Bangladesh were thrown in at the deep end, without the players, the money, or the structure, to survive.
As the most recent example, Sri Lanka’s record is flattered by having had a handful of genuinely world class players in the early years. Beyond the national team, I’m not sure how much depth they had.
Bangladesh is only now reaching the point where we should have been thinking about introducing them to Tests. However, we can’t go back, and it’s in the interests of the game that we all give them the support, of every sort, they desperately need.
And you’re right; if they got a couple of really good spinners, they’d start beating sides at home. It’s interesting, if you look at India – whose Test status no one would question, and see how few games they’ve won outside of Asia in the last fifty years. Perhaps the Bangers will be the same.
Tristan – excellent analysis of the Bangladesh situation. Indian must start hosting them for test matches.
Re 4/5 bowlers, please vote in our new poll.
For me, Prior/Broad at 6-7 is too weak to be feasible. Prior has turned into Geraint Jones – began as a good batsman who couldn’t keep, and has become a good keeper who can’t bat.
I think it’s harsh to compare Prior to Geraint Jones. Prior has a first class and test average of just under 40, with almost twice as many tons/fifties as Jones (even though Geraint is 5 years older!). Also, Jones was never considered as a number 6 by England. His test average is 23, whereas Priors is currently averaging 39.
Also, I would not play Broad at 7. On current form Broad would bat 9 behind Swann. The number 7 would be an allrounder …. at the moment, the man in possession is Bresnan. Long term it could be Rashid. I admit that it wouldn’t be the strongest number 7 in the world, but an average of 10 runs an innings from your number 7 is surely not as improtant as playing 5 bowlers and enabling the attack to operate at full pelt for both innings of a match. It’s a no brainer for me. By the way, ten runs per innings is probably generous, as Bresnan’s first class average is only 4 runs lower than Flintoffs (who was considered to be a stong 7), whilst Rashid’s averages 37 in 1st class cricket, which is 3/4 runs higher than Freddy!
Play Bresnan in the Ashes? Take a crap bowler because he can bat?
No. It’s about finding the best allrounder than balances the team. Bresnan is not a brilliant bowler, but he is an adequate 4th seamer. He bowls a relatively heavy ball, like Jacques Kallis, and has a big heart. He is a decent stock bowler. Nobody is suggesting that he opens the bowling. Again, I think Bresnan looked poor at Lords because of the work load.
In the T20 world cup, and in county matches for Yorks, Bresnan bowled/bowls 85-87mph. Of course, at Lords he looked like a medium pacer and was bowling 82 mph …. because he was bloody knackered! That’s what you get when you play 4 bowlers and enforce the follow on! If Simon Jones had been one of 3 seamers in the 2005 Ashes, do you think he would have bowled at 90mph? We got the most out of our attack in that series because they shared the work load. Playing 4 bowlers is not feasible overseas either, when the pitches are tame and the weather is hot.
The problem with the five bowlers argument isn’t so much the theory as the practise. This applies to the available players, selection policy, and captaincy.
I feel the comparison with the 2005 Ashes attack is flawed for several reasons. We had four pace bowlers who were genuinely world class, all at or near the top of their game, and all had a different role. Hoggard a superb exponent of conventional swing with the new ball, Harmison a tall, bouncy seamer in the style of Ambrose, Flintoff the backbone of the attack, bowling a flat, heavy delivery, able to move it either way, and as fast as anyone in the world, and Simon Jones as the extra man, an expert at reversing the old ball, coming in for short, devastating spells later in the innings.
As a unit they complemented each other perfectly and, as there were four of them (which makes it the subject of this debate), were virtually relentless. They were reminiscent of the West Indies attack of the eighties, and were probably the best fast bowling attack of the era (albeit, only for a year). What’s more, they had a captain who knew how to use them.
Taking the first element of the equation, we don’t have the personnel any more. It’s all very well to say it would be good to have a Simon Jones coming in as the extra man, but that’s not an option. In reality it would be a Sidebottom. Doesn’t sound quite so good, does it?
Then there’s the selection and captaincy. The 2005 team was an anomaly. When we’ve picked four bowlers in the past, the selectors have usually been making a reactive response to a lack of penetration from the attack, rather than a proactive strategy based on the available talent. In turn, they end up picking an extra man without really thinking it through, and often end up just duplicating another bowler. Rather than having an extra bowler, they have two bowlers sharing one role. For instance, if they have Anderson in the team, rather than picking someone completely different, like Harmison, they pick another medium pace swing bowler, like Sidebottom. If one of them can swing it, they both can, and having two of them is probably unnecessary. If it’s not swinging, we just end up with two people bowling medium pace rubbish instead of one.
Captains seem similarly vexed. They end up giving the fifth bowler a few desultory overs rather reluctantly, rather than as part of their strategy. They look like a village captain who tosses someone the ball because he stepped in at the last moment, and has driven a long way, and is a nice chap, so he really has to, hasn’t he?
I think on balance, when England bowl well, four bowlers is enough to do the job. When they bowl badly, they could have picked eleven and it would be just as bad, if not worse. We won last year with five proper batsmen, but our batting looked desperately weak at times. It relied far too heavily on Strauss and the tail. At times it appeared the tail began at 2.
If Prior and Broad had progressed the way they should have, I’d feel differently, and the argument would be redundant in any case. However, they’ve both gone backwards. Prior barely justifies no. 7 at the moment, let alone being a frontline batsman. If he doesn’t turn it around this summer, there will be deserved calls for his place to be considered. Broad is sometimes superb, but too much of the time is just a passenger, with both bat and ball, putting even more pressure on the rest of the team. Who in their right mind would put money on Cook, Bell, and Trott to do the business without any back-up?
We need to be regularly hitting 450+ first innings to win the Ashes. If we’re not, it doesn’t matter what the bowlers do, or how many of them there are. We’ll lose.
Agree with all the above. In Australia, solid batting is more important to get right first, before penetrative bowling. If we can bat big, or at least medium, we’re in the game, and any scoreboard pressure we can muster will help. If we get bowled out for 230 it doesn’t matter which bowlers we take.
Five bowlers seems either like a bodge, or extravagance – our batting is not reliable enough at the moment. We can’t rely on the tail as part of our strategy – their runs are a bonus.
You are all being so negative. You need to take 20 wickets to win a match. I’m just looking at it from the other way around. We can find enough runs in the team. We don’t have great specialist batsmen, but we bat deep – with Swann and Broad at 8 and 9. Why do we need more batting? Why not trust the batsmen we have to get the job done? They did it in 2005 and they did it in 2009. Do you want to score lots of runs and then get a draw because we can’t bowl the opposition out? The 2005 side was Treco, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, KP, Fred, Geraint, Giles. Hardly a great batting line-up at all, but we got enough runs. The current side has a long tail … it should therefore also score enough runs.
I understand what you are saying Tristan, but I think you are wrong … not because your argument is false (I can see what you’re saying about a 5th bowler being an imitation of the 4th), but because you are looking at things through a defensive prism. You are looking at the team and worrying, rather than seeing what it CAN do.
Also, what happened to Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff (and Jones for that matter) after the 2005 Ashes? They all lost form and eventually their place in the side or got long term injuries. Why? Because they were often part of a 4 man attack and bowled into the ground. Do you not remember Harmsion trying to be a stock bowler – he was rubbish at 82mph. It simply does not work, which is why the record books show that England have always been more successful with a 5 man attack. I think your memory of the 2005 attack is inflated … have you considered that they might have looked so good in 2005 because they were part of a 5 man attack, not a 4? It seems like a bit of a coincidence that their form dipped individually when they were not longer operating as a 5 man battery? After the great Windies team aged and dissolved in the early 1990s, Walsh and Ambrose remained brilliant bowlers …. the same cannot be said of Harmison etc.
And again I think you’re wrong re: Sidebottom. When he bowls at 85mph, Sidebottom is a very useful performer (as demonstrated in the T20 world cup). If he comes into the side as one of 3 seamers, he will soon be exhausted and will have to operate at 80 mph – which is when he looks very ordinary. If you share the workload, and keep the bowlers fresh, they are more likely to operate at their optimum level. That’s the core of my argument.
Not particularly. I addressed your points in my earlier replies. I don’t have an objection to the principal of five bowlers and five batsmen with a batting keeper. Far from it. I quite like that balance. Nor am I looking at it defensively. As I said, it’s the difference between principal and practice.
The principal is fine, and has been proved successful, but it relies on having the right players and the right strategy. I don’t believe we have either at the moment. It’s like a team deciding they need to play loose running rugby, when their players and set-up are targeted at ruck and maul forwards rugby. There’s nothing wrong with the idea, it’s the reality.
Five bowlers relies, for instance, on Prior meriting his place as a genuine batsman. Right now he’s not pulling his weight, and he hasn’t for a while. There are definite question marks over Cook, Bell, and Trott, too. Playing with six batsmen is one thing, playing with two is quite another.
That being said, if the extra batsman were Bell, I’d feel just as happy to argue that he so rarely changes the course of a game that you may as well do without him and play a bowler.
Errr… now I know Giles was referred to as a Wheelie Bin in 2005 but I think that he might like some recognition for being the 5th bowler during England’s magnificent victory over the Auld Enemy. An before you start he contributed so vital wickets during the series…
Oh and on the main bit – England struggled to bowl Bangladesh out, not score runs…
The role of the spinner isn’t in question, it’s the extra seamer.
Struggling to bowl out Bangladesh could equally suggest either Bangladesh batted very well on a good pitch, or England bowled very badly, rather than England were a bowler light.
Sorry Tristan, my reply looked like it was directed to you personally … whereas really I ended up responding to Maxie and Goose too! Got a bit carried away.
I totally agree with you that England often get the pick wrong when they DO select five bowlers. Although we won the 2nd test in Bangladesh, I thought it was farcical that Tredwell played (I realise the squad selected gave us no other options, but my beef is with the initial squad selection). Playing two off spinners in the same side didn’t make sense to me. I appreciate that the selectors didn’t want to blood Rashid or go back to Panesar, but it still seemed like a conservative selection. Do you remember when we picked a 5 man pace attack at Headingly against South Africa a few years ago … that was so dumb. Kabir Ali bowled a few token overs simply to justify his place in the team. It was ridiculous.
I understand what you are saying about picking identical bowlers i.e. two swingers. We must get the selection right when we play 5. I totally agree about the Ashes 2005 attack having the perfect blend. If I was picking the XI for Australia this winter, I would go with Anderson, Broad, Finn and Bresnan, Swann. They are not in the same class as the 2005 boys yet, but there is a good balance there. Two tall quickish seamers in Broad and Finn, a skiddier swing bowler in Anderson, and a heavy ball merchant in Bresnan (who also swings it a bit). If they can share the work load, and operate at 86-89mph for most of the day, I think we will bowl the Aussies out. Off spinners are also handy in Australia, so I think our attack will be ok.
The batting is a bit of a worry, but then it worried me in 2005 and 2009 too. I remember having no faith whatsoever in Flintoff and Jones at 6/7, or Bell at 4 (meanwhile, Vaughan wasn’t at his best either once he became captain). However, we somehow scored enough runs to win. This time, I think we bat a bit deeper with Swann/Broad at 8/9 clearly superior to Giles/Hoggard. Therefore, I’m adopting an attacking and aggressive mindset … because I got it so horribly wrong before! let’s hope I’m not totally wrong again.
You can’t go into a major series with a strategy of accepting the top 5 are bit crap but hoping the bowlers will chip in down the order. We can’t rely on Broad and Swann’s runs, and Bresnan will get absolutely flayed in Australia.
I agree broadly with both views. I always prefer the attacking option, but I can’t ignore the reality.
I like the extra bowler option if that bowler is a genuine asset, such as Jones, not just a passenger, like Ali or Treadwell (or so many others in the past). I don’t like an extra bowler just for the sake of it.
However, as I’ve said, I often feel just the same when they throw in Bell as an extra batsman. He seems to contribute so rarely when it really matters that I usually wish they’d just chucked in a wildcard youth from the counties.
This conversation has reminded me of an interview with, I think, Devon Malcolm, talking about his era in the nineties. They usually played with a four man attack and had some pretty handy bowlers over time – the likes of Malcolm himself, Fraser, Gough, Cork, Tufnell, Caddick, and so on.
Responding to criticism that that didn’t win very often, he pointed out that when England scored 500 in that period, they nearly always won. Problem was that they kept getting bowled out for 280. Bowlers need something to defend, and runs always build pressure.
If we had an attack I felt confident could regularly bowl out Australia for 300, a la 2005, I’d be happy to opt for the aggressive option. Reality is, we haven’t, and I think we’re going to have to concentrate on not losing, and then capitalizing when we get the sniff of a win. That’s really what we did last year. We got outplayed, but managed not to lose, and then capitalized upon our opportunities better than the Australians. As ever, horses for courses.
Of course, what Berry’s comparisons with the past may have overlooked re five bowlers, is the difference between, say, Knott and Botham, or Stewart and Flintoff, as the batsman/all-rounder combo, and what we have on offer – Prior/Bresnan. Yikes.
*keeper/all-rounder, that should say.
Prior isn’t on form at the moment, but why does everyone assume he isn’t going to recapture his form. He is still a far superior 6 than Flintoff ever was (Freddy averaged a poor 31 in tests). Our batting isn’t great atm, but neither is the standard of bowling around the world. What is becoming difficult, is taking 20 wickets. Also, what we haven’t discussed thus far is how difficult it is for batsmen (even specialists) to build major inns when they have just spent 2 and a half days in the field chasing leather as the oppo piles up 650 runs. There is also huge pressure when you need 450 just to aviod the follow on.
What are the major trends in test cricket at the moment? The demise of the great fast bowlers and tracks that are slower, lower, and easier for batting. Therefore we need to adapt. A batting line-up of Strauss, Cook, Bell, KP, Collingwood, Prior, Bresnan, Swann, Broad, Anderson, Finn is more than capable of posting totals as a unit. Indeed, it is superior, in my eyes (and stastistically), to the 2005 line-up of Strauss, Tresco, Vaughan, Bell, KP, Flintoff, Geraint, Giles, Hoggard, Harmison, Jones.
Why are so many people obsessed with (a) changing what has been a winning formula against Australia (b) obsessed with finding space for a specialist number 6 batsman who isn’t particularly good any way. I do not understand. Worrying about a batting order that is stronger than ones that have already won the Ashes twice is bizarre.
On a final note – and I promise I’ll give it a rest after this (as I’m beginning to repeat myself!) – look what happened to Bresnan at Lords. The reason why he was poor was because he irritated a foot injury that has now turned into a stress fracture. Yorkshire are furious. Bresnan had to bowl a massive 50 overs in the match (and remember he was used sparingly at times because of his injury). That is what happens when you over-work an attack which has just 3 seamers. They end up exhausted and sometimes injured. If England want to bowl out Australia, let alone Bangladesh, they will need 4 guys operating at peak pace … not pacing themselves because the weather is hot and the pitch is flat. Asking 4 guys to share 180 overs (two days play) is incredibly risky … and not productive. Do we want Finn to become another trundler, or do we want him to run in and bowl with hostility. All England’s bowlers over the last 10 years or so have much better averages when they are part of a 5 man attack … the facts speak for themselves.
The batting, meanwhile, is a team effort. Everyone can contribute as part of a unit. If Australia had Warne and McGrath, who were likely to demolish anybody who wasn’t a specialist, then I’d moderate my view – but in this era, we need to concerntrate on taking wickets and preserving the health and fitness of what few genuinely test class bowlers we have.
Runs have not been a problem for England in recent years (despite our dearth of world class operators in the world top 20). That’s because we bat deep … much like the the cricketboks in the 1990s (Pollock/Boucher down the order etc) … and there are no threatening attacks in world cricket like there were ten years ago. What we struggle to do is take 20 wickets. That is the problem we need to address.