Does England's flop matter?

Popular: Kapil Dev | Malcolm Marshall | Sachin Tendulkar

Series

	Series


England v New Zealand
ICC Champions Trophy
The Investec Ashes (England v Australia)
England Domestic Season
More current and future series

Countries

	Countries


Australia	Afghanistan	Other Countries
Bangladesh	Canada	Women's Cricket
England	Ireland	ICC
India	Kenya	Beyond the Test World
New Zealand	Netherlands
Pakistan	Scotland
South Africa	USA
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Zimbabwe

Live Scores

	Live Scores

Fixtures

	Fixtures

Fixtures Home

Live Coverage

Current and Future Tours

International Calendar

Results

	Results

Analysis

Does England's flop matter?

Tim de Lisle

| |

24 Comments

For England, the Champions Trophy has begun not with a bang but a whimper. In Jaipur today, the only fireworks came from the crowd. On that, there will be little disagreement. The question is, will this poor performance have ramifications? Will it make any difference in Brisbane on November 23?

There are two immediate consequences. The batsmen have little form or confidence to take into Saturday’s meeting with Australia. And England now have to win that match to stay in the tournament. Whether all the England players want to stay in it, deep down, is doubtful – if they drop out early, they get a precious few days at home before setting off for Australia. But you can be sure they don’t want to be humiliated, to be the next whipping boys for the marauding gangs known as Fleet Street sports editors. Which is what will happen if they crash to a second defeat.

So there’s more pressure on England. And less on Australia, who have already been favoured by the fixture list – they begin with a nice gentle game against West Indies, who are a cut below all the other teams apart from England. It becomes ever more bizarre that those two reached the final last time.

As a team, England showed fight – but only when it was too late. The game was lost by the time the teams sat down for supper. The bowlers, who had to be in the groove from the first ball, started as badly as the batsmen had. Steve Harmison has spent this year blowing as hot and cold as he used to in his youth, and today he was both: stone-cold at the start, perfectly warm in his second and third spells.

England’s best and most accurate bowler in the two wins over Pakistan last month was Jon Lewis, and dropping him in order to give the new ball to two men returning from injury was just gormless. With Lewis to take the new ball, and Monty Panesar to come on second-change, England could just have won this match.

The individual displays were not all bad. Ian Bell was unlucky, sawn off by a bad decision. Andrew Flintoff got a good ball, and defended an indefensible total with spirit. Paul Collingwood battled away in his familiar role as the housemate who at least tries to clear up the mess. Kevin Pietersen survived a ropey start to find a one-day tempo when England were crawling along like a dud Test team, and briefly managed to bully Ajit Agarkar as if his name was Gillespie. Jamie Dalrymple showed some gumption again, with both bat and ball. Sajid Mahmood had his radar switched on and demanded respect. Jimmy Anderson made a decent return from a long lay-off.

England’s meagre total owed more to excellent new-ball bowling by Patel and Pathan than to bad batting. On the other hand, Andrew Strauss was a shadow of his Test self until he took his place in the slips. Chris Read, usually a savvy one-day player, wasted an umpiring reprieve by immediately having a brainstorm. And the sudden decision to hand the number-four slot to Michael Yardy looked like Duncan Fletcher’s worst idea since he got Geraint Jones to open the innings. Yardy is a batsman so pedestrian, he goes for a walk every time he faces a ball. His one-day batting average is 20. He’s a tidy, resourceful operator in the Dalrymple mould, not the new Graham Thorpe, and he was just getting settled in at number seven.

England are bad at one-day cricket largely because Fletcher keeps making decisions like this. In seven years he has never managed to put together a consistent wicket-taking attack, or a top order that can make hundreds. In Tests, he has done both, so all is not lost for the Ashes. But the mountain England have to climb just got a little steeper.

Tim de Lisle is the editor of Intelligent Life magazine and a former editor of Wisden

Feeds: Tim de Lisle

Posted by PG on (October 18, 2006, 17:31 GMT)

David - New Zealand has not won the cricket World Cup either...

Posted by Jimmy Pitt on (October 18, 2006, 17:30 GMT)

"Australia, who have already been favoured by the fixture list – they begin with a nice gentle game against West Indies, who are a cut below all the other teams apart from England."

Got that one absolutely spot on, Tim!!

Posted by Sreemoy on (October 18, 2006, 9:25 GMT)

England's long standing problem in ODI's is the batting.Trescothick shouldnt be taken in either test or oneday.He is a person who likes to sit in the warmth of his sofa in his living room.Perhaps he thinks by touring India he will have a sunstroke knowing that all the matches are day and night.Fredie should come at 5.The batsmen has to understand that the pitches in INdia are not for driving a ferrari but nudge short singles

Posted by Jonny Hodgetts on (October 18, 2006, 9:22 GMT)

It seems to me that the England ODI side are getting there and I find it hard to disagree with the 14 out in India (make that 13 of them as I don't think Clarke should be there). Fred should have batted at 6 with KP at 3. I'm fine with Yardy at 4, though if Tres comes back into the team, then Bell drops to 4 and Yardy goes. If Yardy's slow left arm is required, then Mahmood is dropped, retaining Lewis and Anderson as the opening bowlers (my only change to the side would be Lewis for Harmison). That leaves you with a current starting XI of Strauss, Bell, KP, Yardy, Colly, Fred, Dalrymple, Read, Mahmood, Lewis, Anderson and the potential of adding Tres in relatively easy if required. For all of Fletcher's ODI failings, he may just yet get it right come the World Cup.

Posted by Andrew on (October 18, 2006, 4:59 GMT)

The poms have a problem in that the only batsman with proven credentials in Australia is injured, (Vaughan). KP having come from Sth Africa may adapt well. None of this has anything to do with what happens on a flat low bouncing sub-continent pitch.... or does it. England beat Australia in the Champ Trophy prior to the ashes, then stuck it to Australia in the ODI part of the Ashes summer. Summary - England need to compete with Australia here in India or face losing some ground. From a technique point of view it won't matter one iota as conditions down under will be a completly alien experience (batsmen mainly). Panesar is the key. Fast bowlers need to keep pressure on for Panesar & batsmen need to aclimatise. ps: Won't matter cos the aussies will hammer the poms 5 - 0 - Pidgeon says so!!!

Posted by Aditya on (October 18, 2006, 4:13 GMT)

From Tim's comments, it looks like England never wanted to be playing the Champion's Trophy in the first place. In that case, wouldn't it be better to have sent the England second eleven instead of risking injuries (physical and mental) so close to the Ashes? The ECB could have asked all the top players to pull out Marcus Trescothick did. Because regardless of what Tim says, if the Aussies crush England on Saturday - and if England play like they did against India, they most definitely will - and end up winning the Trophy, the advantage lies with them when the Ashes starts.

Posted by Pete on (October 18, 2006, 0:42 GMT)

Haha, you English are a funny lot aren't you? Win one ashes in 25 years and suddenly thats the only series/tournament that matters? Maybe once you guys lose it again you can start taking all the other cricket a little more seriously, and perhaps become a decent side.

Posted by Matthew on (October 17, 2006, 22:16 GMT)

Given the primary focus on the Ashes, surely in upcoming Aussie match, England should be looking to "smash Glenn McGrath into retirement" as I read somewhere...

If you're going to do this, you open with KP.

Posted by David on (October 16, 2006, 11:14 GMT)

England have always been bad at one day cricket. England, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are the three countries not to win the World Cup. However in April 2005, before they went on to take the Ashes they were rated 7th in the ICC rankings and now they are 8th.

England's one day form has never been a measure of their determination to beat the Aussies this winter.

It would be nice though if they could play one day cricket like adults with a sense of responsibility!!

Posted by KPs Skunk on (October 16, 2006, 11:13 GMT)

England are bad at one-day cricket largely because Fletcher plays favourites. He has selected a string of people he likes without seeing that there are other options. Similarly in tests it is questionable that a 2-1 series win after 7 succesive losses is no vote of confidence considering the mediocre performances in England this year particularly against Sri Lanka. If England can maintain a consistent wicket-taking attack,(which could prove difficult with the loss of Jones , a half hearted Harmison and no Duke Ball) a top order that can make hundreds (particularly with Bell,Collingwood, KP and cook playing well)is fine but winning tests boils down to taking twenty wickets. What worries me is that with so many English players have written books about last years series so has Fletcher it seems that psycologically the mission is accomplished. Your contention that Fletcher is a great coach at Test level rings hollow. He might have taken England from a laughing stock to ashes winners however if England are to be the best team in the world they have to win everywhere and in the past 30 years the West Indies of the late 70's and early 80's are the only team that could manage that regularly.

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tim de Lisle
Tim de Lisle is a former editor of Wisden. He fell in love with newspapers at the age of seven and with cricket at the age of 10. He started in journalism at 16, reviewing records for the London Australian Magazine, before reading classics at Oxford and writing for Smash Hits, Harpers & Queen and the Observer. He has been a feature writer on the Daily Telegraph, arts editor of the Times and the Independent on Sunday, and editor of Wisden Cricket Monthly, where he won an Editor of the Year award. Since 1999, Tim has been the rock critic of the Mail on Sunday. He is deputy editor of Intelligent Life, the new general-interest magazine from the Economist. He writes for the Guardian and makes frequent appearances as a cricket pundit on the BBC and Sky News.