December 21, 2013

Why England need Eoin Morgan

Like Australia's Steven Smith, Morgan is unorthodox and audacious, and doesn't conform to England's straight-like thinking

Eoin Morgan has the rare magic in batting that Kevin Pietersen possesses © PA Photos

This is a tale of two Test match middle-order men. One has batted 30 times for his country, averaging 35.22, with two hundreds and five fifties. The other has marked his guard 24 times, averaging 30.43 with two hundreds and three fifties. As closer comparison, when the first of the two went out to bat for his 24th time, he took guard averaging 29, and not having made a hundred at all.

That innings came at The Oval, and it became Steven Smith's maiden century. It was a madcap knock from an offbeat player, brutal in parts, almost always deeply unorthodox. Smith, it seemed, was one of those batsmen, the sort who coaches and commentators are convinced they can work out, and yet whose flaws are somehow aesthetic rather than self-destructive ones.

He followed it up with a far better century in Perth when a series was on the line. Smith had found his place in an Australian top order like no other, an order that in turn reflects the game's new order. He joins David Warner, George Bailey and Shane Watson as men whose style and substance has been fashioned by the white ball. Of Australia's first six, only Clarke and the old-timer Rogers echo the less fluid boundaries of an older time.

It's an order that says something about the mindset of Darren Lehmann, a man who has had to think on his feet. His batting line-up came together through necessity rather than long-term planning. Like Sherlock Holmes, once he'd discarded all the other possibilities, he was left with an answer.

Cricket has a love for symmetry. For Lehmann a few months ago, read Andy Flower today. From somewhere among the wreckage of overwhelming defeat - if he decides to take it on - he must find an answer of his own.

The Flower era has run on straight lines. He is a man of rigour and order, of deep thought as well as cricketing instinct. The systems that he has put in place reflect that order: in Loughborough England have aimed at nothing less than scientifically unravelling the mysteries of the game and then finding players to fit the blueprints that they have built.

From Jonathan Trott's hundred on debut to Ben Stokes' knock in Perth, Flower's judgement has proved sound. Yet Ashes defeats bring with them their fin de siècle vibe, and there is a feeling emerging that cricket itself, with its raging schedules and its shock of the new, is moving beyond England's approach. It has always been as much about art as science, after all.

Lehmann's batting order suddenly appears more attuned to this mood music. As public reaction to Kevin Pietersen's entire career has proven, England and the English tend to mistrust and misunderstand the unorthodox.

Beneath the current England side, there is a raft of batsmen and bowlers who emerged with promise but who remain on the outside: Dernbach, Meaker, Woakes, Kieswetter, Buttler, Kerrigan, Taylor, Bopara and plenty more.

Among them is most unorthodox of all, Eoin Morgan. He remains the jewel of England's white-ball batting, an audacious match-winner with a big-time temperament, a cold-eyed killer of thrilling consistency, a finisher to be treasured.

At 27 - his prime - and with his Steven Smith-style record, he now seems as far from the Test team as a player of his ability has ever been. Judged on the empirical evidence, measured within England's straight lines, his omission is a logical decision. In a short career he has, at times, struggled against seam and spin, and he has also appeared unsure of his role.

But if the game is starting to resist straight-line thinking, can England continue to let a rare talent like Morgan's exist outside of Test cricket? He is the one player not currently in the side who has the X factor, the sprinkle of unlikely magic that only very rare batsmen possess. In that, he is like Pietersen, and he also echoes KP in his love for the full house, the big occasion. He's not the sort of player who will get himself up for county cricket. And he is one of the few players outside of Pietersen who can be imagined playing the kind of innings that Pietersen plays - both good and bad.

England are approaching a time when there will be fewer certainties in what they do. Morgan, like Smith, does not offer certainty. But he brings something that England haven't got, something that can't be manufactured, that doesn't come from systems, that puts bums on seats. For now, as Smith prospers, Morgan withers on the vine.

Jon Hotten blogs here and tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Dummy4 on December 24, 2013, 3:05 GMT

    to Dave Allen: but where does that leave England? face it mate, your beloved team are in a far worse state than Aussie. and the margins of defeat in the first 3 test matches flatter you, since Aussie declared in 4 of 6 of their innings.

  • Dummy4 on December 23, 2013, 21:10 GMT

    Both Smith and Morgan aren't good enough for test match cricket hence their poor career stats, even with enough starts to be confident about their abilities. Smith got a hundred at Perth but flattered to deceive. The Australian top order is very fragile and it won't be long before they too are on the end of innings defeats when their very decent bowling attack fails to fire.

  • Don on December 23, 2013, 18:50 GMT

    Why not let Ireland (including Northern Ireland), Scotland and Wales pool their resources and play international matches as a combined team and bring them up to test standard? Call them The Celts. Never mind that Celtland is not a real country; neither England nor the West Indies are real countries in the political realm but no-one in cricket worries.

    And let players like Morgan play for both England and The Celts while they get up to speed.

  • Cricinfouser on December 23, 2013, 14:58 GMT

    I understand the comparison but it only really works at a superficial level. Smith's career is on the rise and he looks like a player who understands how to make his technique work in his favour. Morgan started well but the idiosyncracies in his technique seemed increasingly to be getting in the way, a fact he himself acknowledged. Scoring runs for his county in 4 day cricket would be a good way of demonstrating that he has mastered his technique.

  • Cricinfouser on December 23, 2013, 14:37 GMT

    @jimbond - You talk of Ireland 'needing' Morgan and Rankin as if their wishes don't enter into it. They represent England only because that is what they have chosen to do. Who are we to dictate to them?

  • Prahaan on December 22, 2013, 23:53 GMT

    Dear JH, Greetings. There is (was) a great deal of hype about Morgan, and I followed his innings with great deal of interest. The stats will tell you, that he is highly over rated, and not someone you want to build a future around. Follow his last 10 test and/or ODI innings and you will see this. Thanks, PC.

  • John on December 22, 2013, 5:05 GMT

    England require a batsman who can score runs consistently in the longest form of the game. Morgan hasn't shown that he can do that- he hasn't even shown that he can do that at county level.

    Short-format cricket requires different skills than the long-format game. It seems to be taking some people, including some columnists, a long time to grasp that.

  • randolf on December 21, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    The most intelligent batsman who has ever played the game, the Gt Sunil Gavascar has CORRECTLY told the world that technique in batting is "OVERRATED"! Your natural technique is the best! So, I don't know what Morgan or Smith's unorthodox batting style has to do with whether or not they're being picked. The idea should be: "Are they 'good enough' with their natural style to do the job"? If the answer is yes, then pick them! I've seen some of those guys whom they tout as having all this perfect stance, and balance, and 'head and ear position against a wall', etc. batting for 3+ yrs and can hardly score 30 runs against the best bowlers! Because, the same school that taught them how to play every shot, etc; taught the fields men which angles to block to prevent the them from scoring via these said shots. So they get impatient and get out! At the same time Shiv Chnderpaul, who is the modern target of criticism about his technique is the most consistent modern batsman with his style! Cont'd

  • Jai on December 21, 2013, 13:26 GMT

    @jimbond: Bangladesh is actually pretty good. I am not sure what they have to do to get respect...they whitewashed the Kiwis, almost won the Asia Cup and are quite obviously competitive against strong teams. Ireland are nowhere near that level with or without Rankin and Morgan.

  • suresh on December 21, 2013, 8:07 GMT

    Very true. Pre-conceived ideas should be discarded by English selectors. There are many ODI players, who will do good, if given the chances afforded to a lot of Test cricketers.

  • No featured comments at the moment.