So the time has come. After months, years even, of deliberation and talk, the ECB’s proposed new T20 tournament is set to get its green light. The day was always coming, the ECB determined to push through their plan – and the promise/bribe of £1.3 million a year to each county that said yes was always too much to say no to. The ECB hype machine has been out in full force, but no amount of buzz can hide that so many – much like myself – have significant reservations about a new competition that takes a big gamble with the game’s future. This is by no means a comprehensive list of the questions that need to be answered, but they are some that spring immediately to mind:
What about the existing fans?
Of course I’m all for the game reaching out and finding new fans, I love this sport and want always want there to be more people watching it, playing it, enjoying it in the way that I do. But whilst they’re gambling on a new competition to attract a new audience, they still need to make sure not to alienate the existing one they have. County cricket might not have the biggest crowds, might not have the 'glamour' the ECB are after, but there are still lots and lots of dedicated fans of the game – can they get behind these new teams without that same sense of identity, that emotional attachment that they have for their county? Will the teams be named after cities, already an alienating idea for many? Will people care in the same way? And will the competition be enough to attract a new audience anyway?
What does this mean for the other competitions?
The cricket calendar is already packed, and this competition is taking place in addition to the existing three tournaments – most notably the T20 Blast, a competition unloved by the ECB but where attendances have grown year on year. The 50 over cup is likely to be running at the same time, as are test matches (also meaning a lack of red-ball practice for any players called up to the test team). It’s all a lot to fit in. And what does it mean for the county structure, more generally? Though the franchises will be ECB owned, if the bigger grounds host more matches surely they then stand to gain more if the competition is a success. Will ‘smaller’ counties just be pushed to the side again?
What about television?
The question of free-to-air television is one of the most frequent debates to pop up in English cricket ever since it went behind a paywall at the end of 2005. The T20 Blast hasn’t been well suited to television coverage, with the pot luck element that comes with choosing a single match to broadcast on a night when many games are played. The plan is for all games to be televised, with 8 of 36 to appear on free-to-air television – which is a must if it really is to reach a broader audience than before. But 8 out of 36 isn’t a lot, and will make it difficult to provide context to the few games they do show. And of course there’s no guarantee that putting it there will actually make people watch it, a reason in itself that broadcasters are reluctant to put up the cash – though it will definitely make for a greater potential audience than before.
The oversaturation of T20 cricket
You’ll have this one, the T20 Blast, a myriad of franchise T20 competitions around the world…it’s all a lot to absorb. Is the demand really there for another competition, or for two in the same country? How are the counties going to market the T20 Blast alongside the new competition, especially those whose grounds will be playing host for more than one team? Would it not have been easier to adjust the T20 Blast, a competition that has already proved popular, provides good cricket, and has an existing fanbase? The T20 Blast isn’t flawless, so maybe they could have looked at how to make it better and more palatable for spectators rather than going straight ahead with a new tournament outright – maybe divisions with promotion and relegation, or some way to streamline it so there aren’t so many ‘dead’ games once a team can’t qualify for the knockouts.
In England the effects of saturated periods of T20 cricket have been seen before, and was one of the reasons why the Blast became a weekly, Friday night competition. It’s part of that balance between the cricketing side and the marketing side – playing T20 in a bloc, rather than the constant switching between formats, makes better sense from a cricketing standpoint; but has also been harder to sell, with the saturation of all these games coming close together. There is a demand for a domestic T20 competition, but I’m not sure how much demand there is for two.
And so...
Who knows if the competition will be a success: even the ECB, it would appear, can’t be sure. Certainly it seems like a big gamble to take, one where it feels the consequences haven’t been well considered, but still the ECB are determined to plough on and remove any obstacles in their way. It feels more like the ECB missed the boat for these competitions a long time ago, and are just frantically paddling to catch up, staring enviously at the BBL and the IPL as they do. Even this competition is a long way off, not set to start until 2020 – by this point the IPL will have been going for well over 10 years, the BBL nearly 10. I’m not rooting for it to fail, I want to watch a good competition and I always want cricket to be a success – but at the moment I’m not seeing how these issues are being resolved. With three years to go before the tournament begins, hopefully we will see some answers.
The ramblings of an ever suffering but ever optimistic follower of English cricket.
Showing posts with label Twenty20. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twenty20. Show all posts
Tuesday, 28 March 2017
Friday, 8 April 2016
World Twenty20 reflections
Friday, 8 April 2016
Four balls, four sixes. The final was over, just like that. A final full of twists and turns; ups, downs, and ups again; forty overs filled with drama. England found themselves in a strong position with the West Indies needing 19 runs from the last six balls, but Carlos Brathwaite only needed four of those to pull off a spectacular win. It was one of those brilliant, freakish innings that you can't count on to happen, and yet happen they do. England, and especially the bowler Ben Stokes, were left heartbroken. For the West Indies, it was time to celebrate.
But as painful as that final turned out to be, to finish the tournament as runners up is still a great achievement for this very young England side. It was a team that had made tonnes of progress over the past year, but over which there were still plenty of questions to be answered, plenty of new tests to be had. It was a team with minimal experience of playing in India, and a side that still seemed to be searching for its best eleven. It was a team filled with the optimism of youth and promising results over the past year, but whose confidence might easily have been dented by a Twenty20 series defeat in South Africa, with many also involved as a 2-0 lead was surrendered in the ODI series. It was a team that had the potential to do something, but just as much potential to crash out in dramatic fashion.
And after a game and a half, it was the latter that seemed the most likely outcome. An opening loss to a Chris Gayle-inspired West Indies, and the tall task of chasing down 230 against South Africa. The tournament had barely begun and England were already facing an uphill task to make it through to the next stage.
But there was Joe Root, and Jason Roy, and Jos Buttler. The total was, unbelievably, chased down. That mantra of no fear, to always play with confidence and aggression, didn't look quite so foolish as it sometimes could. This was a team that backed themselves, a team on the up. They stumbled against Afghanistan but they still came on through, then delivered two of their best and most complete performances in matches against Sri Lanka and New Zealand - the first an effective knock out game, the second being the semi final.
The players were coming through, making their mark on the big stage. The ones you'd expect - Joe Root and Jos Buttler making key innings with the bat, Ben Stokes taking on key overs at the death. And then those perhaps less heralded faces. Chris Jordan, often maligned, but who has turned into England's main man with the ball at the death of an innings. Liam Plunkett, in and out of the side, but becoming England's most economical bowler once he found his way back in. David Willey, England's leading wicket taker who earned a spot in the team of the tournament. Jason Roy was another rising England star who made that team (Root and Buttler being the other England men), his innings of 78 against New Zealand being a particular highlight.
The final, well, it was a bit of a rollercoaster. 23/3 down in the powerplay, a recovery led by Root and Buttler, then further stumbles, comebacks, and stumbles. 155/9 was a total that didn't quite look enough, but at the same time a decent total considering the start they made. And it looked a better total after Joe Root - of all people - opened the bowling and dismissed both openers Johnson Charles and Chris Gayle. England were taking wickets and keeping things tight, but they couldn't budge Marlon Samuels, his 85* keeping West Indies in the game. But still, with 19 required from the last six balls, England had to be the favourites. Then there was Carlos Brathwaite.
Ben Stokes will be hurting after that final, after that over. But it's what sport is about: those amazing moments for one team that are so heartbreaking for the other side; those setbacks and how the person responds. Stokes has already had his share of setbacks in his brief career, and still has come back to do brilliant things. And I would back him again, he will learn from this experience and come back stronger.
Yet still, England can be proud of their performance in this tournament. For an unfancied, unproven team to get to the final - and come so close to winning the thing - is still an achievement, and bodes well for the future. There might still be some maturity to learn, but already they are showing the potential to beat anyone and challenge at the top. And if you compare the team now to how they were after the 50 over World Cup, things are almost unrecognisable. What a difference a year makes. Hopefully the upward curve will only continue.
And after a game and a half, it was the latter that seemed the most likely outcome. An opening loss to a Chris Gayle-inspired West Indies, and the tall task of chasing down 230 against South Africa. The tournament had barely begun and England were already facing an uphill task to make it through to the next stage.
The players were coming through, making their mark on the big stage. The ones you'd expect - Joe Root and Jos Buttler making key innings with the bat, Ben Stokes taking on key overs at the death. And then those perhaps less heralded faces. Chris Jordan, often maligned, but who has turned into England's main man with the ball at the death of an innings. Liam Plunkett, in and out of the side, but becoming England's most economical bowler once he found his way back in. David Willey, England's leading wicket taker who earned a spot in the team of the tournament. Jason Roy was another rising England star who made that team (Root and Buttler being the other England men), his innings of 78 against New Zealand being a particular highlight.
The final, well, it was a bit of a rollercoaster. 23/3 down in the powerplay, a recovery led by Root and Buttler, then further stumbles, comebacks, and stumbles. 155/9 was a total that didn't quite look enough, but at the same time a decent total considering the start they made. And it looked a better total after Joe Root - of all people - opened the bowling and dismissed both openers Johnson Charles and Chris Gayle. England were taking wickets and keeping things tight, but they couldn't budge Marlon Samuels, his 85* keeping West Indies in the game. But still, with 19 required from the last six balls, England had to be the favourites. Then there was Carlos Brathwaite.
Yet still, England can be proud of their performance in this tournament. For an unfancied, unproven team to get to the final - and come so close to winning the thing - is still an achievement, and bodes well for the future. There might still be some maturity to learn, but already they are showing the potential to beat anyone and challenge at the top. And if you compare the team now to how they were after the 50 over World Cup, things are almost unrecognisable. What a difference a year makes. Hopefully the upward curve will only continue.
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
Unhappy endings
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
The tour of South Africa came to a crushing finish, the happy high of the test series disappearing as five straight defeats saw a 2-0 lead in the ODI series surrendered and both Twenty20 matches lost. After six straight Twenty20 wins, hopes had - albeit somewhat cautiously - started to rise ahead of the World Twenty20 in a few weeks time. Right now it feels like they have as much work to do as ever. Maybe it's their own way of managing expectations - a few reassuring collapses just so we don't get too far ahead of ourselves.
Of course, a great thing about Twenty20 is its unpredictability. Each World Cup has seen a different winner emerge at the end, and within the space of a few balls the match situation can feel drastically different. Batsmen can so suddenly find themselves on a hot streak, but wickets can fall quickly and then they're under pressure once again. And England can be just as unpredictable. They have players of immense talent and with pedigree in the format, and the six game streak shows how they can deliver - putting on big scores and coming through in pressure situations. But at the same time, there's always a collapse around the corner that can lose them the match. I can't predict their chances in India because I honestly don't know what to expect. But it will be tough.
Reece Topley will be hurting after the first match, but really it was the batsmen who let England down. There are always those tiny moments that have the final impact on the match - the last wicket to fall as a team desperately battles for a draw, the dropped catch, the missed run-out chance that was the case for Topley. But it was a great effort from the bowlers to get into the position where they should have won the match in the last over - Chris Jordan particularly impressing with figures of 3/23 from four. 15 runs were needed in the final over, but Chris Morris was there again - just like he had been in the ODI series. Two full tosses proved costly, dispatched for ten runs. Two were needed from the last delivery, and two were scored as Topley fumbled the throw from Root. It was a cruel way for things to end.
But it should have been better from England. They started strongly - 50 runs from the powerplay and 36 of those in the first three overs. But then they stuttered, and stuttered, and stuttered. Wickets fell in clusters, and batsmen couldn't get away. Buttler was left with a repairs job rather than being able to express himself in the way he can do so well. In the end, they might not have needed that many more, but a total of 134 never looked like being enough. The four wickets of Imran Tahir left a sense of foreboding ahead of a World Cup on the turning pitches of India.
It could have been different in the second match, too. There are few ways to stop AB de Villiers when he gets in the sort of mood he was in when South Africa went out to bat, but there must be ways to stop the kind of collapse that sees a team 171 all out after being 157/3. The scorecard makes horrible reading, progressing from the scores of Root (34 from 17), Morgan (38 from 23), and Buttler (54 from 28) onto something that looks more like a phone number: 1, 5, 1, 1, 2, 1. And then came de Villiers. 71 from 29 balls, six fours, six sixes, strike rate 244.82. Amla's 69* from 38 almost looks slow in comparison. The innings didn't last long, the total chased down within 15 overs with only one wicket to fall.
So once again, England are left with a lot to think about on the eve of a major tournament. It wouldn't be a major tournament otherwise. I don't want to get too pessimistic, because they're a talented bunch of players who have had success in the format over the past year - but it's also fair to say that results in South Africa have dampened expectations a fair bit. Part of it seems to be that they don't quite know their best eleven, or their best batting line-up. There are many all rounders there to work out the order for - David Willey comes in all the way down at number ten, for example. They haven't been able to play Steven Finn in the past few months due to injury, there's the question of James Vince or Jason Roy, and whether or not they want to play the third spinner once they reach India. England can be so full of surprises, good or bad, that it's hard to know what to expect. But it's usually worth watching to find out.
Reece Topley will be hurting after the first match, but really it was the batsmen who let England down. There are always those tiny moments that have the final impact on the match - the last wicket to fall as a team desperately battles for a draw, the dropped catch, the missed run-out chance that was the case for Topley. But it was a great effort from the bowlers to get into the position where they should have won the match in the last over - Chris Jordan particularly impressing with figures of 3/23 from four. 15 runs were needed in the final over, but Chris Morris was there again - just like he had been in the ODI series. Two full tosses proved costly, dispatched for ten runs. Two were needed from the last delivery, and two were scored as Topley fumbled the throw from Root. It was a cruel way for things to end.
But it should have been better from England. They started strongly - 50 runs from the powerplay and 36 of those in the first three overs. But then they stuttered, and stuttered, and stuttered. Wickets fell in clusters, and batsmen couldn't get away. Buttler was left with a repairs job rather than being able to express himself in the way he can do so well. In the end, they might not have needed that many more, but a total of 134 never looked like being enough. The four wickets of Imran Tahir left a sense of foreboding ahead of a World Cup on the turning pitches of India.
It could have been different in the second match, too. There are few ways to stop AB de Villiers when he gets in the sort of mood he was in when South Africa went out to bat, but there must be ways to stop the kind of collapse that sees a team 171 all out after being 157/3. The scorecard makes horrible reading, progressing from the scores of Root (34 from 17), Morgan (38 from 23), and Buttler (54 from 28) onto something that looks more like a phone number: 1, 5, 1, 1, 2, 1. And then came de Villiers. 71 from 29 balls, six fours, six sixes, strike rate 244.82. Amla's 69* from 38 almost looks slow in comparison. The innings didn't last long, the total chased down within 15 overs with only one wicket to fall.
So once again, England are left with a lot to think about on the eve of a major tournament. It wouldn't be a major tournament otherwise. I don't want to get too pessimistic, because they're a talented bunch of players who have had success in the format over the past year - but it's also fair to say that results in South Africa have dampened expectations a fair bit. Part of it seems to be that they don't quite know their best eleven, or their best batting line-up. There are many all rounders there to work out the order for - David Willey comes in all the way down at number ten, for example. They haven't been able to play Steven Finn in the past few months due to injury, there's the question of James Vince or Jason Roy, and whether or not they want to play the third spinner once they reach India. England can be so full of surprises, good or bad, that it's hard to know what to expect. But it's usually worth watching to find out.
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
A team on the rise
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
It was difficult to know what to expect going into the Twenty20 series, the final leg of England's tour to the UAE. England were in an experimental mode, trying out many different faces and resting the more familiar as they search for their best eleven for the World Twenty20 in March next year. Their record since the last tournament might be a good one, but before this series, it was a record based upon four matches. With many new names around the squad - as well as a rather new coach - it was a chance for many to prove themselves worthy of making the trip to India in the spring.
Match one certainly showed their intent to mix it up. Despite being in the squad, players like Root and Buttler were absent from the side, with Sam Billings taking on the keeper's gloves and James Vince making his long-awaited debut. Both made their impact, too - Billings was the top scorer with 53 from just 25 balls, whilst Vince scored 41 and helped England recover from early setbacks that left them 19/3. Partnerships were key - the recovery between Vince and Morgan (45*); the later assault with Morgan and Billings, as 65 runs came from the last six overs to bring England's total to 160.
The bowlers did their job too, another attack with different faces. Topley continued to impress early in his international career, taking 3/24; whilst Stephen Parry took two wickets in his first match since England's defeat to the Netherlands at the previous World Twenty20. Parry has long been an important part of Lancashire's Twenty20 success, and showed he has something to offer England in India where spin will be important. The pick of the bowlers though was Liam Plunkett, something of a forgotten man on this tour and playing only his second international Twenty20 after making his debut back in 2006. Plunkett took 3/21, constantly looking a threat as his pace troubled the batsmen. What perhaps hurt Pakistan most though was the run out of Umar Akmal - as both he and Sohaib Maqsood were left sliding their bat in at the same end. It was comedy cricket at its finest, and the first of three wickets to tumble in the space of six deliveries. The lower order took Pakistan close, but they had been left with an uphill struggle. England took the first match by 14 runs.
England continued to mix things up in the second match. Morgan was out of the team as Buttler captained the side for the first time, with Moeen Ali was also missing out. No one player stood out with the bat for England as several made starts, Vince top scoring with a 24-ball 38 in England's total of 172/8. With Plunkett again taking three wickets, and Rashid taking 2/18 from his four overs, England looked to be heading for a comfortable victory. The run rate was getting out of hand for Pakistan, but Pakistan had Shahid Afridi. You never know when Afridi will go full Afridi, but it happened in match two. Pakistan needed 47 to win from 18 balls; Afridi faced eight and scored 24. But Woakes held his nerve. He had taken the brunt of Afridi's attack, but took his wicket with the last ball of the 18th over, and in the final over came out on top. England secured a narrow 3-run victory, and with a match still to play, the series was theirs.
When they fell to 86/6 in the last match, they'll have been glad the series was already secure, too. Both Roy and Moeen Ali had been dismissed for golden ducks, and both Buttler and Billings were out for single figures. This time Woakes starred with the bat, hitting 37 from 24 to help England's score to a competitive 154/8, and Vince again top scored with 46 in something of an anchor role as the wickets tumbled around him. Pakistan had a rather chaotic start to their reply: Willey's first over having a boundary, four wide balls down the legside, a wicket (bowled), and then a run out after another mix up that left both batsmen at the same end. But the game was never over - Shoaib Malik making 75 from 54 and Afridi starring again with 29. Pakistan needed ten from the final over, and after Tanvir hit a six on the second ball, victory looked like theirs. But it wasn't. A dot, a single, and finally the wicket of Malik, before a bye on the last ball that left scores tied.
A super over was called for. Pakistan would bat - unsurprisingly, Afridi was their man; surprisingly, Akmal was chosen over Malik. England chose Chris Jordan as their bowler, another surprise - in the main match he hadn't taken a wicket, and was their most expensive. But his super over was bang on. The fifth ball especially was spot on, a yorker that could only be hit back to him. Pakistan could muster only three runs, and Akmal was bowled on the last ball. Afridi took the ball for Pakistan, and though it wasn't easy for England either, Morgan and Buttler saw the job through. The matches got closer and closer, but England had come away with a 3-0 win.
And so, England have cause to be optimistic for the World Twenty20. An inexperienced group of players have impressed in both the Twenty20 and ODI games in new conditions for many, and though England still might not know their best eleven yet, they'll know more about what their players can do on this stage. It might be too soon to think that they have a chance come March, but the signs are there that this is a team on the rise, and there's certainly something to look forward to in the future.
Match one certainly showed their intent to mix it up. Despite being in the squad, players like Root and Buttler were absent from the side, with Sam Billings taking on the keeper's gloves and James Vince making his long-awaited debut. Both made their impact, too - Billings was the top scorer with 53 from just 25 balls, whilst Vince scored 41 and helped England recover from early setbacks that left them 19/3. Partnerships were key - the recovery between Vince and Morgan (45*); the later assault with Morgan and Billings, as 65 runs came from the last six overs to bring England's total to 160.
The bowlers did their job too, another attack with different faces. Topley continued to impress early in his international career, taking 3/24; whilst Stephen Parry took two wickets in his first match since England's defeat to the Netherlands at the previous World Twenty20. Parry has long been an important part of Lancashire's Twenty20 success, and showed he has something to offer England in India where spin will be important. The pick of the bowlers though was Liam Plunkett, something of a forgotten man on this tour and playing only his second international Twenty20 after making his debut back in 2006. Plunkett took 3/21, constantly looking a threat as his pace troubled the batsmen. What perhaps hurt Pakistan most though was the run out of Umar Akmal - as both he and Sohaib Maqsood were left sliding their bat in at the same end. It was comedy cricket at its finest, and the first of three wickets to tumble in the space of six deliveries. The lower order took Pakistan close, but they had been left with an uphill struggle. England took the first match by 14 runs.
England continued to mix things up in the second match. Morgan was out of the team as Buttler captained the side for the first time, with Moeen Ali was also missing out. No one player stood out with the bat for England as several made starts, Vince top scoring with a 24-ball 38 in England's total of 172/8. With Plunkett again taking three wickets, and Rashid taking 2/18 from his four overs, England looked to be heading for a comfortable victory. The run rate was getting out of hand for Pakistan, but Pakistan had Shahid Afridi. You never know when Afridi will go full Afridi, but it happened in match two. Pakistan needed 47 to win from 18 balls; Afridi faced eight and scored 24. But Woakes held his nerve. He had taken the brunt of Afridi's attack, but took his wicket with the last ball of the 18th over, and in the final over came out on top. England secured a narrow 3-run victory, and with a match still to play, the series was theirs.
When they fell to 86/6 in the last match, they'll have been glad the series was already secure, too. Both Roy and Moeen Ali had been dismissed for golden ducks, and both Buttler and Billings were out for single figures. This time Woakes starred with the bat, hitting 37 from 24 to help England's score to a competitive 154/8, and Vince again top scored with 46 in something of an anchor role as the wickets tumbled around him. Pakistan had a rather chaotic start to their reply: Willey's first over having a boundary, four wide balls down the legside, a wicket (bowled), and then a run out after another mix up that left both batsmen at the same end. But the game was never over - Shoaib Malik making 75 from 54 and Afridi starring again with 29. Pakistan needed ten from the final over, and after Tanvir hit a six on the second ball, victory looked like theirs. But it wasn't. A dot, a single, and finally the wicket of Malik, before a bye on the last ball that left scores tied.
A super over was called for. Pakistan would bat - unsurprisingly, Afridi was their man; surprisingly, Akmal was chosen over Malik. England chose Chris Jordan as their bowler, another surprise - in the main match he hadn't taken a wicket, and was their most expensive. But his super over was bang on. The fifth ball especially was spot on, a yorker that could only be hit back to him. Pakistan could muster only three runs, and Akmal was bowled on the last ball. Afridi took the ball for Pakistan, and though it wasn't easy for England either, Morgan and Buttler saw the job through. The matches got closer and closer, but England had come away with a 3-0 win.
And so, England have cause to be optimistic for the World Twenty20. An inexperienced group of players have impressed in both the Twenty20 and ODI games in new conditions for many, and though England still might not know their best eleven yet, they'll know more about what their players can do on this stage. It might be too soon to think that they have a chance come March, but the signs are there that this is a team on the rise, and there's certainly something to look forward to in the future.
Thursday, 30 April 2015
Safety first?
Thursday, 30 April 2015
It isn't exactly news to say that English cricket is, on the whole, very conservative. We saw it at the World Cup, we've seen it in test matches; we often see it in the way they play, and in the team selections. There's generally that fear of something different, the reason why we could never see someone with the technique of a Malinga come through the system; or why when we get an exciting young player, an instinct usually prevails that they are 'not quite ready' to step up to that next level.
We've seen this instinct in full force during this series against the West Indies. I will try my best not to keep harping on about it and repeating myself, but it was another instance where England had the chance to try something new and inject some fresh blood, and went for the safe option instead. I have nothing against Trott being back in the team, I am a big fan - but this series could have been an opportunity to go for something different and look to the future with Adam Lyth, have a look at him ahead of the Ashes later this year. And it would have provided something a bit different, a contrast of tempo to Alastair Cook. It's a similar story with Rashid and Tredwell - the steady, reliable option winning the battle rather than that extra touch of adventure, though Rashid is still said to be in contention as a second spinner for the final test. The safe option is understandable given that neither Cook or Moores' jobs have never been entirely secure and they won't want to risk too much, but why not just give it a go and throw them in?
On the field the safest approach usually wins out too - we rarely see an attacking declaration, going that extra mile to secure a draw before thinking of the win; the batting can lack aggression, or at least opportunities are taken as late as possible; when they're in the field, there's often too much hesitation, not enough initiative. Even as England won the Ashes 3-0 in 2013, it just wasn't the most inspiring cricket - a strategy more of grinding the opponent down rather than necessarily exciting the fans. Of course they shouldn't be completely gung ho and completely forget about defence, it just might be nice to see a bit more edge, a bit more fun. It's finding that balance between being entertaining and achieving the results they should. The problem though hasn't been exclusive to Cook's captaincy, more a legacy of conservatism following the team as they go.
The problem isn't just in test cricket. Of the many complaints whilst England struggled through the World Cup, this was one we heard again and again. Part of the problem is the traditionalism of the English game, test cricket always remaining the priority. Whilst test cricket is my favourite format, and probably is too for the large majority of English supporters, it doesn't mean that the others should just fall by the wayside. Tests - and most particularly the Ashes - remain our number one, whilst Australia prove themselves more than capable of managing all three. In the short forms, England just haven't kept up. The thought is still to build a platform, have that solid base to begin with. It can help in England, where the ball does more early on - but it's not always the way forward when they're travelling, or even all the time they're home. Plus there's that constant focus on statistics and the par score, playing to a plan rather than adapting to what's in front of them. It's a conservative way of play, a safe option in formats where there isn't room for one.
England do have young, exciting players, but when they're a bit different from the established norm it seems to strike fear into the hearts of management. Alex Hales scores a brilliant Twenty20 century, puts himself firmly up there with the best in the world and surely becomes a shoo-in for the ODI team, but a new series comes around and the opening pair is Cook and Bell. By the time Hales' chance came round, he was being played out of his preferred spot in the order and the confidence wasn't quite there. Jos Buttler scored an incredible ODI century, one of the best there's been for England - but straight away he's told he's not 'quite ready yet' to be given a go in the test side. Now he's in there, playing well, you wonder why we had to wait.
It's part of the reason why the squad announced for England's trip to Ireland looks so exciting. Hales, Vince, Roy - all have been the names everyone's been talking about over the last year, the new generation to get the fans going. I do have slightly mixed feelings about the squad as a whole - Ireland have a right to feel aggrieved, it being very much a second string side and another marker of England's lack of respect - but it will be interesting to see how some of these players go on their first taste of international cricket. Maybe it's a sign of things to come. But it's a culture problem as much as anything, so it will still be a long - but safe - road ahead.
We've seen this instinct in full force during this series against the West Indies. I will try my best not to keep harping on about it and repeating myself, but it was another instance where England had the chance to try something new and inject some fresh blood, and went for the safe option instead. I have nothing against Trott being back in the team, I am a big fan - but this series could have been an opportunity to go for something different and look to the future with Adam Lyth, have a look at him ahead of the Ashes later this year. And it would have provided something a bit different, a contrast of tempo to Alastair Cook. It's a similar story with Rashid and Tredwell - the steady, reliable option winning the battle rather than that extra touch of adventure, though Rashid is still said to be in contention as a second spinner for the final test. The safe option is understandable given that neither Cook or Moores' jobs have never been entirely secure and they won't want to risk too much, but why not just give it a go and throw them in?
On the field the safest approach usually wins out too - we rarely see an attacking declaration, going that extra mile to secure a draw before thinking of the win; the batting can lack aggression, or at least opportunities are taken as late as possible; when they're in the field, there's often too much hesitation, not enough initiative. Even as England won the Ashes 3-0 in 2013, it just wasn't the most inspiring cricket - a strategy more of grinding the opponent down rather than necessarily exciting the fans. Of course they shouldn't be completely gung ho and completely forget about defence, it just might be nice to see a bit more edge, a bit more fun. It's finding that balance between being entertaining and achieving the results they should. The problem though hasn't been exclusive to Cook's captaincy, more a legacy of conservatism following the team as they go.
The problem isn't just in test cricket. Of the many complaints whilst England struggled through the World Cup, this was one we heard again and again. Part of the problem is the traditionalism of the English game, test cricket always remaining the priority. Whilst test cricket is my favourite format, and probably is too for the large majority of English supporters, it doesn't mean that the others should just fall by the wayside. Tests - and most particularly the Ashes - remain our number one, whilst Australia prove themselves more than capable of managing all three. In the short forms, England just haven't kept up. The thought is still to build a platform, have that solid base to begin with. It can help in England, where the ball does more early on - but it's not always the way forward when they're travelling, or even all the time they're home. Plus there's that constant focus on statistics and the par score, playing to a plan rather than adapting to what's in front of them. It's a conservative way of play, a safe option in formats where there isn't room for one.
England do have young, exciting players, but when they're a bit different from the established norm it seems to strike fear into the hearts of management. Alex Hales scores a brilliant Twenty20 century, puts himself firmly up there with the best in the world and surely becomes a shoo-in for the ODI team, but a new series comes around and the opening pair is Cook and Bell. By the time Hales' chance came round, he was being played out of his preferred spot in the order and the confidence wasn't quite there. Jos Buttler scored an incredible ODI century, one of the best there's been for England - but straight away he's told he's not 'quite ready yet' to be given a go in the test side. Now he's in there, playing well, you wonder why we had to wait.
It's part of the reason why the squad announced for England's trip to Ireland looks so exciting. Hales, Vince, Roy - all have been the names everyone's been talking about over the last year, the new generation to get the fans going. I do have slightly mixed feelings about the squad as a whole - Ireland have a right to feel aggrieved, it being very much a second string side and another marker of England's lack of respect - but it will be interesting to see how some of these players go on their first taste of international cricket. Maybe it's a sign of things to come. But it's a culture problem as much as anything, so it will still be a long - but safe - road ahead.