January 8, 2014

Stokes is the future, the rest is dark

There has been no shortage of punditry and vitriol directed at Andy Flower and Co in the wake of the Ashes loss. They have their work cut out for them
16

Stokes could well be the England side's next pivot, after Graeme Swann
Stokes could well be the England side's next pivot, after Graeme Swann © Getty Images

"I wouldn't walk around the corner to see United."

George Best said that, when his former club had a new manager who was struggling in his job. Best also recommended replacing that manager with Terry Venables. The manager was Alex Ferguson, who didn't win a trophy with Manchester United until his fourth year in charge, and then went on to win a few more - 39 in total.

Best's criticism did not exist in isolation, and it's not quoted here to diminish him (I interviewed him once, in a pub in London; it was funny and sad) but rather to highlight the unknowability of sport. After all, it's why we like it, isn't it? Because we don't know what's going to happen. And if one of the greatest footballers of all time cannot recognise one of the greatest managers, then who can really know anything?

Football and cricket were once quite distinct in the cultures that surrounded them. Football is the ultimate in short-term sports, the beast that feeds on itself. David Moyes, the man who replaced Sir Alex Ferguson, is the 11th longest-serving manager in a Premier League of 20 clubs. He's been in the job for 189 days. Outside of the sport's internal dynamics, there is an almighty clamour of voices that surround it, from former pros, pundits, agents, journalists, television, radio and fans. The demand for change, for something to be done, is constant.

Cricket has always been a more reflective sport, attuned to deeper rhythms. Yet the voices that surround it are becoming amplified, the clamour is growing. And there's nothing like a failure to bring them to the party. Great chunks of it are justified, some of those chunks are insightful, funny, expert, ruminative and rueful and more. They add to a love and enjoyment of the game.

But another great chunk says more about the critic than their subject. Around England's defeat the noise became deafening. It's understandable at times like these why Andy Flower is so guarded and careful, however frustrating that may seem, and however unfavourably it contrasts him with the blessed Boof (it's worth remembering, though, that Flower's output still makes him sound like Brian Clough compared to the unapproachable monolith that was Duncan Fletcher).

The dismantling of Flower's England has been rapid and complete, and if you believe what you read and hear, everyone except Flower saw it coming. The list of solutions is long and varied, and involves sacking everybody. Somehow through this, Flower must plot a course. He has had one great piece of luck that the many ranting voices haven't given much airtime to, and that is a new way of constructing his team.

Flower's era - perhaps after 2015 we'll be calling it his first - was reliant on Graeme Swann. He was the team's pivot point, the player who allowed everything else to happen, the man whose skills, varied and consistent, let Flower play six specialist batsmen and just four bowlers. The stats say that Swann along with James Anderson bowled more balls in Test cricket than anyone else in the period between the 2010-11 Ashes and these - it's not hard to see why his body finally gave out. (And Anderson showed worrying signs of the same. It's the fault of the schedulers, not the players or the coach.)

Ben Stokes, as every pundit has pointed out, is the tour's one highlight for England. But he's a lot more than that. Within Stokes, Flower sees the glimmer of a different future. It's not a spinner who will replace Graeme Swann. England will need to find a twirlyman for sure, but Stokes will be the selection that allows Flower the leeway to build a new side.

It's a finely balanced calibration though. The role Stokes has at the moment, where he bats at six, puts strain on both of his primary skills. England's top order doesn't yet fit together, and it will have to in order to carry a player likely to average in the mid-30s. Equally, Stokes cannot, like Andrew Flintoff ultimately did, bear much of the weight of the bowling attack, because the schedule will finish him.

For decades England have laboured under the illusion created by the indestructible Botham that an allrounder is a magical solution to all problems. Botham was a once-in-a-lifetime cricketer, a physical freak upon whom the psychological pressures of the game had little hold.

Flower's ideal might be that Matt Prior finds a Haddin-style resurrection. He is certainly good enough to bat at six, and allow Stokes to grow into his pivotal existence at seven, with three more seamers below him to share the load. That might point the way to a future in which Stokes can flourish rather than be crushed by work and expectation.

Flower would be justified in pointing out that Australia beat England with a demon fast bowler and a keeper-batsman who had both been written off three years ago, plus a 36-year-old county warhorse at the top of the order alongside a bad boy who was chucked out of the team last summer. They have a No. 3 with a Test average of 36, and a No. 6 with a highest score of 53.

Sometimes circumstance just fits. All of the voices screaming at England should remember that luck and circumstance sometimes coalesce for no real reason. The future will unfold around Stokes. Beyond that, who really knows?

Jon Hotten blogs here and tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Barquerme on January 9, 2014, 0:07 GMT

    Interesting article and responses. Stokes needs to be managed carefully before he becomes a one series wonder. To put it in perspective consider this. Had Ben failed in the second innings in Perth, instead for scoring 120, I think it is highly likely that he would have been replaced for the Melbourne Test, and he would have been ultimately considered as another poor tour selection along with the others that have already had the spotlight shone on them. Secondly, good results and a breath of fresh air for sure, but had England performed to the expectations of the "knowing" and hammered The Green Baggies, or Trott hadn't got sick, Ben would probably not have got a test, or if he had may well have only had limited opportunities to show his wares. Fortunately for Ben he got his chance and took it. Go Ben! Now on to allrounders in general. Every team needs one, but the big danger on relying on them too heavily is if they get injured you really lose two players, ref Jacques Kallis.

  • jimmyvida on January 9, 2014, 19:54 GMT

    Stokes. When I saw him bowl, I thought, here is a bowler who is using his head. Then I saw him bat. Really good bloke. However, this is his first series, so let's not begin to jump allover the place. Let us wait and see a few series more, shall we.

  • jackiethepen on January 9, 2014, 17:53 GMT

    Colly is a product of the English system but he's proving to be an electric captain at Durham. Cook is Cook, don't blame his ineptitude on all possible alternatives. Blame instead the guys who select the captains in the wrong mould. As for Stokes he may or may not be England's saviour. He certainly won't be for every Series. It's too early to give him that mantle. He wasn't coached at Durham to think like that. Geoff Cook believes the team wins the trophies not one man. Isn't it childish to keep picking out one player? We've had the same tripe for Bairstow, Root. They in the possibles once again.

  • gavin7094 on January 9, 2014, 12:46 GMT

    This is nonsense. Stokes being hailed as the player to build the team around for the next 5 years? He is not proven at Test level yet. A few above average performances in a generally out-of-form team are not enough to form the basis of a judgement. He could just as easily fail for 3 or 4 games and be dropped.

  • on January 9, 2014, 12:30 GMT

    The live broadcast here is at 5a.m and believe me Stokes was d only player I watched out for England be it his batting or Bowling. English does have a lot of expectations frm hm bt dat dsnt mean u wud crush hm wid dat. he has jst come in.!!!

  • bobmartin on January 9, 2014, 10:31 GMT

    The media and the fans always latch on to someone to talk-up or talk-down.... For example.. take Mitchell Johnson.. who after several series of not being able to buy a wicket is now, after just one successful series, being lauded as one of the worlds great bowlers. Take Bell as another example.. last home series he was the saviour of England's batting line-up.... now he's just another failed batsman... whilst Stokes, after one match.. is the new man. It goes with the territory I'm afarid... OTT praise is quickly followed by OTT denigration/blame... There seems to be no half-measures.

  • Jonathan_E on January 9, 2014, 1:47 GMT

    We should not have arranged this series. Ashes series should be every 4 years in England (2001, 2005, 2009, 2013) and every 4 years in Australia (2002-3, 2006-7, 2010-11... it should have been 2014-15). We should have toured somebody else this winter, preferably South Africa, and in January-March, not stuffing 4 test matches into less than 6 weeks before the New Year.

  • on January 9, 2014, 0:07 GMT

    @Vikas Singh actually thats not strictly true. Swann up until the last year or so has been a fixture in all 3 sides and Anderson has been rested far less than you'd think.

    In fact, over the period in question (end of 2010/11 Ashes to now) only 1 person (Saeed Ajmal) has bowled more overs in all formats than Anderson and Swann. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=11;orderby=overs;spanmin1=08+Jan+2011;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

  • JAH123 on January 8, 2014, 22:34 GMT

    As an Aussie I thoroughly enjoyed watching my team belt the Poms. However, for the sake of test cricket I would hate to see Stokes crushed by the weight of expectation. Our media can be bad when it comes to praise or criticism of sportsmen but the English media is on another level. Stokes has the talent and attitude to flourish if he is given the space and time to just do his own thing. Focus the scrutiny on guys like Bell, Cook and Broad - they are the ones who need to drive the team into the next era, not a raw rookie.

    As a side note, Cook would do well to seek some advice from someone like Mark Taylor (assuming Taylor would be willing to assist the old enemy!), who was tactically a fantastic captain. Cook has leadership qualities but, being a product of English cricketing tradition, he is too safe, unimaginitive and predictable on the field.

  • Iddo555 on January 8, 2014, 15:10 GMT

    I think he is a genuine all-rounder. I wouldn't say his batting is better or his bowling is better. he might make a better number 7 or 8 to give him more of license to wack the bowlers but I don't have a problem with him playing at 6.

    Hopefully he carries on playing the same way, he's been a breath of fresh air in this series when the rest of the established players were found wanting

  • Barquerme on January 9, 2014, 0:07 GMT

    Interesting article and responses. Stokes needs to be managed carefully before he becomes a one series wonder. To put it in perspective consider this. Had Ben failed in the second innings in Perth, instead for scoring 120, I think it is highly likely that he would have been replaced for the Melbourne Test, and he would have been ultimately considered as another poor tour selection along with the others that have already had the spotlight shone on them. Secondly, good results and a breath of fresh air for sure, but had England performed to the expectations of the "knowing" and hammered The Green Baggies, or Trott hadn't got sick, Ben would probably not have got a test, or if he had may well have only had limited opportunities to show his wares. Fortunately for Ben he got his chance and took it. Go Ben! Now on to allrounders in general. Every team needs one, but the big danger on relying on them too heavily is if they get injured you really lose two players, ref Jacques Kallis.

  • jimmyvida on January 9, 2014, 19:54 GMT

    Stokes. When I saw him bowl, I thought, here is a bowler who is using his head. Then I saw him bat. Really good bloke. However, this is his first series, so let's not begin to jump allover the place. Let us wait and see a few series more, shall we.

  • jackiethepen on January 9, 2014, 17:53 GMT

    Colly is a product of the English system but he's proving to be an electric captain at Durham. Cook is Cook, don't blame his ineptitude on all possible alternatives. Blame instead the guys who select the captains in the wrong mould. As for Stokes he may or may not be England's saviour. He certainly won't be for every Series. It's too early to give him that mantle. He wasn't coached at Durham to think like that. Geoff Cook believes the team wins the trophies not one man. Isn't it childish to keep picking out one player? We've had the same tripe for Bairstow, Root. They in the possibles once again.

  • gavin7094 on January 9, 2014, 12:46 GMT

    This is nonsense. Stokes being hailed as the player to build the team around for the next 5 years? He is not proven at Test level yet. A few above average performances in a generally out-of-form team are not enough to form the basis of a judgement. He could just as easily fail for 3 or 4 games and be dropped.

  • on January 9, 2014, 12:30 GMT

    The live broadcast here is at 5a.m and believe me Stokes was d only player I watched out for England be it his batting or Bowling. English does have a lot of expectations frm hm bt dat dsnt mean u wud crush hm wid dat. he has jst come in.!!!

  • bobmartin on January 9, 2014, 10:31 GMT

    The media and the fans always latch on to someone to talk-up or talk-down.... For example.. take Mitchell Johnson.. who after several series of not being able to buy a wicket is now, after just one successful series, being lauded as one of the worlds great bowlers. Take Bell as another example.. last home series he was the saviour of England's batting line-up.... now he's just another failed batsman... whilst Stokes, after one match.. is the new man. It goes with the territory I'm afarid... OTT praise is quickly followed by OTT denigration/blame... There seems to be no half-measures.

  • Jonathan_E on January 9, 2014, 1:47 GMT

    We should not have arranged this series. Ashes series should be every 4 years in England (2001, 2005, 2009, 2013) and every 4 years in Australia (2002-3, 2006-7, 2010-11... it should have been 2014-15). We should have toured somebody else this winter, preferably South Africa, and in January-March, not stuffing 4 test matches into less than 6 weeks before the New Year.

  • on January 9, 2014, 0:07 GMT

    @Vikas Singh actually thats not strictly true. Swann up until the last year or so has been a fixture in all 3 sides and Anderson has been rested far less than you'd think.

    In fact, over the period in question (end of 2010/11 Ashes to now) only 1 person (Saeed Ajmal) has bowled more overs in all formats than Anderson and Swann. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=11;orderby=overs;spanmin1=08+Jan+2011;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

  • JAH123 on January 8, 2014, 22:34 GMT

    As an Aussie I thoroughly enjoyed watching my team belt the Poms. However, for the sake of test cricket I would hate to see Stokes crushed by the weight of expectation. Our media can be bad when it comes to praise or criticism of sportsmen but the English media is on another level. Stokes has the talent and attitude to flourish if he is given the space and time to just do his own thing. Focus the scrutiny on guys like Bell, Cook and Broad - they are the ones who need to drive the team into the next era, not a raw rookie.

    As a side note, Cook would do well to seek some advice from someone like Mark Taylor (assuming Taylor would be willing to assist the old enemy!), who was tactically a fantastic captain. Cook has leadership qualities but, being a product of English cricketing tradition, he is too safe, unimaginitive and predictable on the field.

  • Iddo555 on January 8, 2014, 15:10 GMT

    I think he is a genuine all-rounder. I wouldn't say his batting is better or his bowling is better. he might make a better number 7 or 8 to give him more of license to wack the bowlers but I don't have a problem with him playing at 6.

    Hopefully he carries on playing the same way, he's been a breath of fresh air in this series when the rest of the established players were found wanting

  • Clan_McLachlan on January 8, 2014, 14:04 GMT

    The truth is that every good team needs both a batting all rounder and a bowling all rounder. On England's good days Prior was the former and Swann or Broad was the latter. Now Swann is gone and Prior can't seem to bat any more.

    Stokes would never make the team for his batting - he's a bowling all rounder. It's all good and well slotting him into Swann's spot, but they need either a keeper-batsman at 6 (to play an five bowlers) or a specialist keeper at 7 and a batting all rounder who can bowl 10-15 overs a day in the top 6.

  • gsingh7 on January 8, 2014, 13:51 GMT

    two good matches and stokes is already branded as saviour by english media. the same media which branded cook as second only to bradman only to see cook score at around 20 for a year since. prior was second coming of gilchrist only to see him dropped from team as he was outscored by number 8 and 9 batsmen in the team.jimmy went from as good as steyn to an average bowler outside england and averaging in high forties in aus's fast bouncy pacy wickets.need some perspective ,do we?

  • Natural_Outswing on January 8, 2014, 12:15 GMT

    It's too early to say what the balance of Stokes' all round status will be and thus how the team should form around him if he is indeed the new pivot. The 2005 Ashes team had a major pivot in Flintoff but also a secondary one in Giles who could bowl tidily and score useful runs at 8. Flintoff may have been a place too high at 6. Botham averaged 33 in tests and batted 5/6 too, but was a world class bowler, at one point the biggest wicket taker of all time. From what i can see Stokes is a very correct bat and might end up with a proper Test match average. He's on the same sort of average as Root for now so may go on to be as good - or not as Root.

  • on January 8, 2014, 8:41 GMT

    Everyone keeps talking about how exhausted the England team are -- but most of the Test players were coming off a month-long break!!! Cook was at his farm, Prior was cycling, and so on. Swann and Anderson may have bowled a lot of balls in Tests, but they sat out most of England's ODIs and T20s. If you actually look at days played in all formats, you'll probably find that a lot of guys play a lot more than England's cricketers. Exhaustion has just become a convenient excuse

  • Harlequin. on January 8, 2014, 8:38 GMT

    Agree with the comment below - a good series in India and Root was the golden child of England's future. A good series in Australia and Stokes is all of a sudden the backbone of the England team. True, Stokes did show some backbone against the Aussies which is something to be positive about but we really need to allow players to perform for 10-20 tests before declaring them to be beating heart of a test team.

  • IndiaNumeroUno on January 8, 2014, 7:55 GMT

    One series and poor Stokes is already being branded the savior by media. Just imagine how castigated he will be in the England dressing room... I can only see pressure building up on the young lad before he too goes kaput like many before him for eg: Bairstow, Trott, Finn etc. LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!

  • IndiaNumeroUno on January 8, 2014, 7:55 GMT

    One series and poor Stokes is already being branded the savior by media. Just imagine how castigated he will be in the England dressing room... I can only see pressure building up on the young lad before he too goes kaput like many before him for eg: Bairstow, Trott, Finn etc. LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!

  • Harlequin. on January 8, 2014, 8:38 GMT

    Agree with the comment below - a good series in India and Root was the golden child of England's future. A good series in Australia and Stokes is all of a sudden the backbone of the England team. True, Stokes did show some backbone against the Aussies which is something to be positive about but we really need to allow players to perform for 10-20 tests before declaring them to be beating heart of a test team.

  • on January 8, 2014, 8:41 GMT

    Everyone keeps talking about how exhausted the England team are -- but most of the Test players were coming off a month-long break!!! Cook was at his farm, Prior was cycling, and so on. Swann and Anderson may have bowled a lot of balls in Tests, but they sat out most of England's ODIs and T20s. If you actually look at days played in all formats, you'll probably find that a lot of guys play a lot more than England's cricketers. Exhaustion has just become a convenient excuse

  • Natural_Outswing on January 8, 2014, 12:15 GMT

    It's too early to say what the balance of Stokes' all round status will be and thus how the team should form around him if he is indeed the new pivot. The 2005 Ashes team had a major pivot in Flintoff but also a secondary one in Giles who could bowl tidily and score useful runs at 8. Flintoff may have been a place too high at 6. Botham averaged 33 in tests and batted 5/6 too, but was a world class bowler, at one point the biggest wicket taker of all time. From what i can see Stokes is a very correct bat and might end up with a proper Test match average. He's on the same sort of average as Root for now so may go on to be as good - or not as Root.

  • gsingh7 on January 8, 2014, 13:51 GMT

    two good matches and stokes is already branded as saviour by english media. the same media which branded cook as second only to bradman only to see cook score at around 20 for a year since. prior was second coming of gilchrist only to see him dropped from team as he was outscored by number 8 and 9 batsmen in the team.jimmy went from as good as steyn to an average bowler outside england and averaging in high forties in aus's fast bouncy pacy wickets.need some perspective ,do we?

  • Clan_McLachlan on January 8, 2014, 14:04 GMT

    The truth is that every good team needs both a batting all rounder and a bowling all rounder. On England's good days Prior was the former and Swann or Broad was the latter. Now Swann is gone and Prior can't seem to bat any more.

    Stokes would never make the team for his batting - he's a bowling all rounder. It's all good and well slotting him into Swann's spot, but they need either a keeper-batsman at 6 (to play an five bowlers) or a specialist keeper at 7 and a batting all rounder who can bowl 10-15 overs a day in the top 6.

  • Iddo555 on January 8, 2014, 15:10 GMT

    I think he is a genuine all-rounder. I wouldn't say his batting is better or his bowling is better. he might make a better number 7 or 8 to give him more of license to wack the bowlers but I don't have a problem with him playing at 6.

    Hopefully he carries on playing the same way, he's been a breath of fresh air in this series when the rest of the established players were found wanting

  • JAH123 on January 8, 2014, 22:34 GMT

    As an Aussie I thoroughly enjoyed watching my team belt the Poms. However, for the sake of test cricket I would hate to see Stokes crushed by the weight of expectation. Our media can be bad when it comes to praise or criticism of sportsmen but the English media is on another level. Stokes has the talent and attitude to flourish if he is given the space and time to just do his own thing. Focus the scrutiny on guys like Bell, Cook and Broad - they are the ones who need to drive the team into the next era, not a raw rookie.

    As a side note, Cook would do well to seek some advice from someone like Mark Taylor (assuming Taylor would be willing to assist the old enemy!), who was tactically a fantastic captain. Cook has leadership qualities but, being a product of English cricketing tradition, he is too safe, unimaginitive and predictable on the field.

  • on January 9, 2014, 0:07 GMT

    @Vikas Singh actually thats not strictly true. Swann up until the last year or so has been a fixture in all 3 sides and Anderson has been rested far less than you'd think.

    In fact, over the period in question (end of 2010/11 Ashes to now) only 1 person (Saeed Ajmal) has bowled more overs in all formats than Anderson and Swann. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=11;orderby=overs;spanmin1=08+Jan+2011;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

  • Jonathan_E on January 9, 2014, 1:47 GMT

    We should not have arranged this series. Ashes series should be every 4 years in England (2001, 2005, 2009, 2013) and every 4 years in Australia (2002-3, 2006-7, 2010-11... it should have been 2014-15). We should have toured somebody else this winter, preferably South Africa, and in January-March, not stuffing 4 test matches into less than 6 weeks before the New Year.