England v Ireland, World Cup 2011, Group B, Bangalore March 3, 2011

England's destiny slipping through their grasp

Ireland's stunning victory has certainly enlivened the World Cup but has left England's game in an urgent need for revival
32

It's been said with increasing certainty over the past 11 days of action that "The World Cup has finally come alive". It first came alive when Virender Sehwag slammed 175 against Bangladesh on the opening night; it then came alive when Bangladesh bounced back from that defeat to beat Ireland and ignite jubilant scenes in Dhaka; in between those games, it came alive when Ryan ten Doeschate gave England the fright of their lives in Nagpur, and it was most certainly alive when England responded by giving India an almighty tussle in Bangalore.

But none of those moments came close to matching the extraordinary liveliness of Ireland's triumph over England on Wednesday night. In spite of every effort from the organisers to drain the tournament of suspense, that crazy gang of Irish interlopers is on the march again. Global tournaments come to life when favoured teams are slain, and Ireland have just laid claim to one of the most prized scalps of the lot.

In so doing, finally, the permutations of this World Cup are wide open. England, having budgeted for four points from six at the midway stage of their group campaign, find themselves one point short of that tally after blowing two victories in three incredible days. That they had to settle for a share of the spoils against India, a team that had beaten them 11 times out of 12 on home soil, was forgivable, but to trip up against Ireland, and in such a sensational manner, has laid waste to all presumption about their natural progression to the quarter-finals.

Three tricky contests await in the coming days - against South Africa, Bangladesh and West Indies - and if they let their standards slip like this again, England are perfectly capable of losing all three, just as Ireland will believe they have the power to drag other stragglers into the mire as well, now that they have in their possession both the highest successful run-chase in the history of World Cup cricket, and the fastest century-maker in their instant legend, Kevin O'Brien.

Wednesday was Ireland's day, no question, but England are becoming the un-put-downable team of this tournament, and not for reasons they would covet. Like a cork bobbing on an estuary tide, they are somehow finding a way to rise and fall to match the expectations placed upon them - and that's been a pattern they've enacted with rhythmical poise ever since they floated up the Bay of Bengal to launch their warm-up phase in Fatullah. Frantic scramble against Canada; flowing triumph against Pakistan; loss of plot against Netherlands; chase for the ages against India; ultimate upset against Ireland ... thumping win against South Africa in Chennai? Surely not!

The entertainment it provides is undeniable, but England would far sooner be a joyless, ruthless, victory machine - akin to the Australian sides of the 2000s whom they seemed so set upon matching during the first half of the winter - than the mercurial Pakistan-lite outfit that they're rapidly turning out to be. Lame shot selection, dreadful fielding, and an unmistakably snarky vibe between team-mates - most notably Graeme Swann and whoever had just fumbled his latest delivery - spoke of a bunch of players who've been on the road too long, and are most likely pretty sick of the sight of one another.

When Tamim Iqbal starts to go bonkers in Chittagong in a week's time, or when Imran Tahir ties the lower order in Chawla-style knots in Chennai, will it really help England's mindset to know that their highest first-innings total in the history of the 50-over World Cup was insufficient to save them from defeat against Ireland?

"I don't tend to rank my lowest moments to be honest with you, it's not something I'm in the habit of doing," said Andrew Strauss, who can't have gone from hero to zero with quite such terminal velocity before. "But it's a bitterly disappointing day for us, there's no doubt about it. We were just thinking we were getting some momentum in this competition after the India game. We've given that away. We're not out of the World Cup by any means, but we're going to have to be better than we were today."

It's hard to see what England can do for a quick fix, however, after the pasting they have just been subjected to. The result might well focus the mind, just as it seemed the Netherlands near-miss had done - but focus it on what, exactly? When Tamim Iqbal starts to go bonkers in Chittagong in a week's time, or when Imran Tahir ties the lower order in Chawla-style knots in Chennai, will it really help England's mindset to know that their highest first-innings total in the history of the 50-over World Cup was insufficient to save them from defeat against Ireland?

"I backed our bowlers and our fielders to put on a display that was going to be too tough for them to chase down, but we didn't do that and we've only got ourselves to blame," said Strauss. "But there's pressure everywhere and that's the way it should be in a World Cup. Hopefully it'll galvanise us as a team, because the equation is pretty simple now. We can't afford any slip-ups and we're going to have to go out there and deliver."

There's no point in second-guessing how England will perform from this point on. However, the faultlines are all too apparent, in far too many areas of the team, with hindsight now giving Andy Flower's end-of-match grimace against India a more knowing and sinister vibe. He's seen how effective his team can be when it's at the top of its game - never more so than at Melbourne and Sydney two months ago - and therefore he knows better than anyone how far from the mark they are right now. After all, if two of the best individual performances in England's history weren't sufficient to force a victory over India, it follows that anything less than a tour de force was going to leave them open to defeat.

The defining feature of Ireland's innings - aside from the torrent of Kevin O'Brien sixes - was the absolute confidence that scoring opportunities would arise, even when the asking rate refused until the 48th over to dip as low as a run a ball. The defining feature of England's innings, by contrast, was of hot-blooded hitting at inopportune moments - first Strauss and Kevin Pietersen gave their starts away fecklessly, then the tail subsided in a wave of indisciplined slogging, the like of which Ireland didn't once consider matching.

Paul Collingwood and Matt Prior were once again the most culpable in that respect. If they had been listless against India, they were positively unhinged against the Irish, as both men lost their shape at the crease as soon as it became apparent that they could not find the boundary at will.

Collingwood, in particular, is currently batting as if he's on a weekend at Bernie's. Among all-time England six-hitters, he's second only to Andrew Flintoff, but his solitary maximum on Wednesday was a gift-wrapped half-volley after a stream of ugly smeared singles. Ravi Bopara, who spanked 45 from 16 balls in his most recent ODI innings against Bangladesh in July, is the only man who can come close to applying the touch of class that has been missing since the demise of Eoin Morgan. It's the one sadness of this tournament that such a fine finisher has been denied the stage on which to shine, but perhaps it's karma as well. Had Morgan been batting in those final five overs, there's no way England would have settled for 33 barrel-scraped runs. And it's all the less likely that his former countrymen would have won ...

Other concerns refuse to go away. For the third match running, England's bowlers have been unable to recreate the pack mentality that propelled last year's World Twenty20 challenge. In consecutive innings Swann, Tim Bresnan, then Swann again have returned combined figures of 10 for 130 in 30 overs, which is the sort of all-out score that most Test nations would envisage against the Associates.

However, through a persistent and debilitating failure of their colleagues to hit the right length (most notably Anderson in the first two games, then the ailing Stuart Broad against Ireland) the remainder of England's attack has been bludgeoned into submission at every conceivable turn, by Sehwag in the Powerplay, Tendulkar in the middle overs, O'Brien and ten Doeschate at the death. The mantra that won England the Ashes - give the batsmen nothing to hit whatsover - has been lost in translation to the one-day format.

And talking of such format switches, there's also the peculiar case of Jonathan Trott to consider. His Test-match temperament allowed him to slip into exalted company during his 92 against the Irish, as he joined Viv Richards and Kevin Pietersen in reaching 1000 ODI runs in a record 21 innings. However, more speed, less haste is the rule by which one-day batsmen have these days to adher, and for a batsman as naturally reactive as Trott, his feats of crease occupation are starting to look problematic when there's an agenda that needs to be set. In each of England's last four matches in which they've batted first, he's amassed scores of 84 not out, 102, 137 and 92. England have achieved victory in just one of those contests, at Adelaide, and have failed to defend two scores in excess of 325.

England can and should extricate themselves from the mess they now find themselves in - despite their antipathy to overdog status, they remain a fiercely combative outfit. But having allowed themselves to give Ireland their leg-up, they cannot afford to let their destiny slip further from their grasp - the Irish, after all, have the Dutch still to come as their game in hand. And as for the vanquished, there are plenty other sides who will fancy a piece of a deeply-wounded team. Starting with AB de Villiers and chums on Sunday.

Andrew Miller is UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Meety on March 5, 2011, 6:44 GMT

    @youngkeepersdad - both Lee & Hodge are retired from 1st class cricket. I do agree though with the point regarding the management "rabble" Oz was with the "Anybody but Hauritz" selection criteria. I also think North should of been dropped alot earlier. I am a Hughes fan but he got selected on the back of poor form, O'Keefe gets overlooked for Beer when O'Keefe played the Oz A game, & did well. (Not mentioning Doherty as I understood there logic, didn't agree with it). The Ponting 4th Test selection (big fan of Punter), but he has taken a month to get his finger right - how could of healed in a week - the answer it wasn't. I respect Punter for wanting to play - but the selection panel should of said "No!". Yet, they say "No!" to Hussey, when there is plenty of precedance to select him & plenty of time to heal, (think Symonds 2007). Heading into the 4th test we were 1all despite everything, IF we had an inform Opener & IF we had gone Khawaja, who knows! (Big IFs).

  • grady22 on March 5, 2011, 5:27 GMT

    Don't get me wrong, but lack of real high quality players is the basic problem England has. Most English players can perform in certain conditions and inconsistently at the best but they don't have a single match winner either with the bat or the ball. It really amazed me when English players, fans and media were so ecstatic after the match against India....really??? No team with reasonable self-belief would have tied in that situation when India played probably in the worst possible way they could.

    There is nothing wrong with the dream of winning the world cup but nobody will be surprised if England doesn't even qualify for the quarter finals. Sorry, but the best idea right now for England is to stop pretending - just focus on finding some young talent that can bring in a bit of an instinct and quality/

  • ygkd on March 4, 2011, 21:31 GMT

    My son and I had a lowish opinion of Trott( & Cook). Yet both were instrumental in their Ashes success. Trott's one-day form wasn't bad either. It's just that his team was on an understandable let-down. England have their problems. Prior's keeping is nowhere near excellent. Pietersen suffers from inconsistency. Collingwood should have retired totally. Injuries haven't helped. It is ironic that they probably need Morgan to beat the Irish. Perhaps the most ironic thing about Trott is that Bell was in rare form in Aus but couldn't get a bat due to the idiotic decision to leave him down the order - ironic because it was Trott's form that saw Bell stranded. Bell should have been at 3, Trott at 4, KP at 5 & Collingwood at 12. Morgan should have played instead. But that's no fault of Trott's or Bell's; that's management. England stuffed up there and are paying the price. Sure, they won the Ashes, but Aus were a rabble who should have picked Lee & Hodge. The Poms were always on a WC tightrope.

  • SA_Scot on March 4, 2011, 12:08 GMT

    I have to agree with some of the comments criticising Andrew Millers "implication" that Jonathan Trott is a potential issue. I'm not a Warwickshire supporter, and in fact support SA who are generally badly affected by some "exports" so I don't believe I am significantly biased. An article that generally reads well, loses almost all of it's credibility when Trott is singled out as a "problem". No direct mention of what the "agenda" is which Trott is affecting.... I was incredulous with anger when I read this opinion of Mr Miller's, because this opinion is advertised via this article so impressionable cricket fans might agree with it (Though any half-informed cricketer would pay it almost no attention I believe). Well, there is my acerbic response, hopefully also well publicised now :-)

  • IMObserver on March 4, 2011, 8:36 GMT

    Well. If what you wish England had done in their game against Ireland was followed by India in their game against England then England would have lost to India. It would be better to focus on future prospects rather than sunk cost in games past. England should focus on beating SA, and I think they can do it. In these one day encounters almost anything can happen; one umpiring error can make or break team's performance. England probably would win 9 out of 10 times against Ireland; however events with 10% probability can happen and will happen.

  • Veteran50 on March 4, 2011, 4:06 GMT

    The reasons why England lost to the Irish was picking Broad who was not 100 percent fit and sticking with Collinwood who is out of form and underestimating Irish and being complacent. The current form suggests they are likely to loose against South Africa and which then necessitate to win against west indies and Bangladesh to qualify for quarter finals. An ultimate points of 5 may not be enough and England should aim to beat both West indies and Bangladesh and thus getting a total of 7 points which will qualify them to quarter finals. England with their strong batting line up can match any team. An individual brilliant batting by Chris Gayle can upset England, and on the subcontinent pitches a team like Bangladesh may try their luck. Hoping for better luck for England.

  • JB77 on March 4, 2011, 3:33 GMT

    'Ireland have just laid claim to one of the most prized scalps of the lot' It's that kind of thinking that got England into this mess. As in the aftermath of the 2005 Ashes, England aren't as good as they think they are. I also like the irony of England missing Eoin Morgan....I'm sure Ireland miss him more....

  • Meety on March 4, 2011, 2:39 GMT

    Its amazing that a player like Trott who is playing so well is in a losing team so often in ODIs. Alot of Englands problems stem from their "attitude" to ODIs in Oz. Aggressive cricket - ended up meaning recklessness! People wrote the 7-match series, (too long), as being meaningless. Throughout that MEANINGLESS series (on the eve of a WC), the top order (barring Trott), through their wickets away, dropped their Ashes fielding standards, & bowled generally speaking poorly. They couldn't defend sizable totals on a regular basis, guess what, the same things have continued through to the W/Cup. I thought the KP experiment has merit - but you trial that a yr before the cup, not in the warm up games! I think England need to think outside the box & make Yardy opener & budget for only about 4 overs from him. The pace attack should be Tremlett, Bresnan & Shahzad. Use Kps bowling for a couple, Trott for a couple & they have covered for dropping Colly!!!!

  • Mannix16 on March 4, 2011, 1:06 GMT

    what is andrew miller thinking? trott had a strike rate very close to 100 in the ireland match and it was obvious that after he made his century, he would fling loose..... his career SR is 80 which is not bad... not bad at all

  • on March 3, 2011, 21:21 GMT

    As a lot of readers have mentioned .. all else be agreed upon totally misguided blame against Trott. He has been one man who has held the innings together, hasn't played one ugly shot and scored at a fair clip. It's the bowlers - barring Swann and Bresnan who need to pull their weight. In all fairness, batting hasn't been a worry for ENG - just like Dhoni quipped the other day - if you can't defend 320-330+ you might as well give up hopes of making the cut!

  • Meety on March 5, 2011, 6:44 GMT

    @youngkeepersdad - both Lee & Hodge are retired from 1st class cricket. I do agree though with the point regarding the management "rabble" Oz was with the "Anybody but Hauritz" selection criteria. I also think North should of been dropped alot earlier. I am a Hughes fan but he got selected on the back of poor form, O'Keefe gets overlooked for Beer when O'Keefe played the Oz A game, & did well. (Not mentioning Doherty as I understood there logic, didn't agree with it). The Ponting 4th Test selection (big fan of Punter), but he has taken a month to get his finger right - how could of healed in a week - the answer it wasn't. I respect Punter for wanting to play - but the selection panel should of said "No!". Yet, they say "No!" to Hussey, when there is plenty of precedance to select him & plenty of time to heal, (think Symonds 2007). Heading into the 4th test we were 1all despite everything, IF we had an inform Opener & IF we had gone Khawaja, who knows! (Big IFs).

  • grady22 on March 5, 2011, 5:27 GMT

    Don't get me wrong, but lack of real high quality players is the basic problem England has. Most English players can perform in certain conditions and inconsistently at the best but they don't have a single match winner either with the bat or the ball. It really amazed me when English players, fans and media were so ecstatic after the match against India....really??? No team with reasonable self-belief would have tied in that situation when India played probably in the worst possible way they could.

    There is nothing wrong with the dream of winning the world cup but nobody will be surprised if England doesn't even qualify for the quarter finals. Sorry, but the best idea right now for England is to stop pretending - just focus on finding some young talent that can bring in a bit of an instinct and quality/

  • ygkd on March 4, 2011, 21:31 GMT

    My son and I had a lowish opinion of Trott( & Cook). Yet both were instrumental in their Ashes success. Trott's one-day form wasn't bad either. It's just that his team was on an understandable let-down. England have their problems. Prior's keeping is nowhere near excellent. Pietersen suffers from inconsistency. Collingwood should have retired totally. Injuries haven't helped. It is ironic that they probably need Morgan to beat the Irish. Perhaps the most ironic thing about Trott is that Bell was in rare form in Aus but couldn't get a bat due to the idiotic decision to leave him down the order - ironic because it was Trott's form that saw Bell stranded. Bell should have been at 3, Trott at 4, KP at 5 & Collingwood at 12. Morgan should have played instead. But that's no fault of Trott's or Bell's; that's management. England stuffed up there and are paying the price. Sure, they won the Ashes, but Aus were a rabble who should have picked Lee & Hodge. The Poms were always on a WC tightrope.

  • SA_Scot on March 4, 2011, 12:08 GMT

    I have to agree with some of the comments criticising Andrew Millers "implication" that Jonathan Trott is a potential issue. I'm not a Warwickshire supporter, and in fact support SA who are generally badly affected by some "exports" so I don't believe I am significantly biased. An article that generally reads well, loses almost all of it's credibility when Trott is singled out as a "problem". No direct mention of what the "agenda" is which Trott is affecting.... I was incredulous with anger when I read this opinion of Mr Miller's, because this opinion is advertised via this article so impressionable cricket fans might agree with it (Though any half-informed cricketer would pay it almost no attention I believe). Well, there is my acerbic response, hopefully also well publicised now :-)

  • IMObserver on March 4, 2011, 8:36 GMT

    Well. If what you wish England had done in their game against Ireland was followed by India in their game against England then England would have lost to India. It would be better to focus on future prospects rather than sunk cost in games past. England should focus on beating SA, and I think they can do it. In these one day encounters almost anything can happen; one umpiring error can make or break team's performance. England probably would win 9 out of 10 times against Ireland; however events with 10% probability can happen and will happen.

  • Veteran50 on March 4, 2011, 4:06 GMT

    The reasons why England lost to the Irish was picking Broad who was not 100 percent fit and sticking with Collinwood who is out of form and underestimating Irish and being complacent. The current form suggests they are likely to loose against South Africa and which then necessitate to win against west indies and Bangladesh to qualify for quarter finals. An ultimate points of 5 may not be enough and England should aim to beat both West indies and Bangladesh and thus getting a total of 7 points which will qualify them to quarter finals. England with their strong batting line up can match any team. An individual brilliant batting by Chris Gayle can upset England, and on the subcontinent pitches a team like Bangladesh may try their luck. Hoping for better luck for England.

  • JB77 on March 4, 2011, 3:33 GMT

    'Ireland have just laid claim to one of the most prized scalps of the lot' It's that kind of thinking that got England into this mess. As in the aftermath of the 2005 Ashes, England aren't as good as they think they are. I also like the irony of England missing Eoin Morgan....I'm sure Ireland miss him more....

  • Meety on March 4, 2011, 2:39 GMT

    Its amazing that a player like Trott who is playing so well is in a losing team so often in ODIs. Alot of Englands problems stem from their "attitude" to ODIs in Oz. Aggressive cricket - ended up meaning recklessness! People wrote the 7-match series, (too long), as being meaningless. Throughout that MEANINGLESS series (on the eve of a WC), the top order (barring Trott), through their wickets away, dropped their Ashes fielding standards, & bowled generally speaking poorly. They couldn't defend sizable totals on a regular basis, guess what, the same things have continued through to the W/Cup. I thought the KP experiment has merit - but you trial that a yr before the cup, not in the warm up games! I think England need to think outside the box & make Yardy opener & budget for only about 4 overs from him. The pace attack should be Tremlett, Bresnan & Shahzad. Use Kps bowling for a couple, Trott for a couple & they have covered for dropping Colly!!!!

  • Mannix16 on March 4, 2011, 1:06 GMT

    what is andrew miller thinking? trott had a strike rate very close to 100 in the ireland match and it was obvious that after he made his century, he would fling loose..... his career SR is 80 which is not bad... not bad at all

  • on March 3, 2011, 21:21 GMT

    As a lot of readers have mentioned .. all else be agreed upon totally misguided blame against Trott. He has been one man who has held the innings together, hasn't played one ugly shot and scored at a fair clip. It's the bowlers - barring Swann and Bresnan who need to pull their weight. In all fairness, batting hasn't been a worry for ENG - just like Dhoni quipped the other day - if you can't defend 320-330+ you might as well give up hopes of making the cut!

  • stu.r on March 3, 2011, 20:21 GMT

    I can't believe the article written by Andrew Miller to suggest one of England's problems is Jonathon Trott.Now I maybe a touch biased as a Warwickshire fan, but to suggest a man who has scored 9 fifties and 3 hundreds in just 21 one day international innings is creating problems is an absolute joke.He is one of the few batsmen who can be relied upon consistantlyto score runs when thay are needed and should be one of the first names on the teamsheet,compare his average of 54.10 to any of the other England batsmen (Even the "great" Kevin Pietersen) and surely this shows how ridiculous the comments are.If every England player applied themselves the same way as Trott we would have won our first three games by now and not worrying whether we are going to qualify for the quarter finals. I normally enjoy Andrew Millers articles,but this must be one of the most ridiculous articles he has written look at the statistics strikes rates of over 100 aren't everything scoring quality runs help too!

  • SagirParkar on March 3, 2011, 20:12 GMT

    with all due respect Mr Miller, could you please explain what you mean by the statement 'every effort from the organisers to drain the tournament of suspense'? As far as i am aware, the organisers do the backstage organising but when it comes to exciting play on the field, it is upto the teams. and secondly, when was England one of the most prized scalp of the tournament? apart from media in England, no one had given England any chance at all, even after the tied game against India. England have a very good team but they have been the architects of their own failures so far and in order to win the tournament they need to improve significantly - both on the field and in their mentality.

  • vissu295 on March 3, 2011, 19:13 GMT

    England fast bowlers haven't learnt bowling in subcontinent after playing so many matches. If anderson keeps bowling on legs he won't get any wickets for sure.

  • pom_don on March 3, 2011, 19:07 GMT

    Well if we are going to get ourselves out of this mess....we have to start playing as we know we can....a bit of re-grouping & determination is required, plus a tinker with the eleven.......Strauss,Pietersen,Trott,Bell,Colly,Bopara,Prior,Bresnan,Broad (if he is prepared to knuckle down & stop blaming everyone else for HIS shortcomings of late),Swann,Shahzad. Anderson & Yardy dropped. Let's get going England!

  • asim900 on March 3, 2011, 19:05 GMT

    Morgan where are you??Dearly missed by the English team...But I feel England will rise again and will sneak through...They might rewrite what Pakistan did in 1992...only if they rise....Mark my words...

  • Htc-Baseball on March 3, 2011, 17:49 GMT

    Its hard to see eng beating sa.....,,,though i wud lov to see..i think eng can pull out vict against wi and bangl quite easily with a little more effort o bowling.......enough wit englan being so orthodox unit,may be thats the reason they keep bowling good length deliveries ....display some ruthlessness at the field if u ever wanna make it to semis

  • on March 3, 2011, 17:06 GMT

    The ever-praising English editors deserved a story like this to shut their mouths.

  • on March 3, 2011, 14:55 GMT

    What nonsense to even consider blaming Trott. 3 scores of over 300 should have translated to three wins. That they didn't is of no fault of the batsmen what-so-ever. We STILL try to bounce people (Has anyone looked slightly worried by the now predictable "slow bouncer")) I watched Maligna, Steyn,Tate,Zaheer, I even watched the thre balls that England pitched up. Broad bowled three against Holland last week - two knocked the stumps over (one off a field position no-ball admittedly) Did anyone realise this? Are yorkers now part of the armoury? Nope. Bowlers barely capable of the monicker "fast" are banging it in on pudding pitches Pitch speed is taken out of the equation with yorkers. I remember waquar saying years ago "Who cares if it's a slow pitch when the ball lands first on the batsmens toe" Does anderson bowl length balls all the time as a joke? Is someone betting him? England bounce merrily on. With bowlers barely capable of 86mph. They'll soon bounce right out of the competition

  • vikram1705 on March 3, 2011, 14:53 GMT

    I think England should not open with Kevin Pietersen. He should come in at one or two down. When the ball is moving around, you need a proper opener. kevin is tentative early on. He will be pretty handy in the middle overs, when you need somebody who could hit boundaries and also rotate strike. Don' waste him! He is the kind of a guy who should be scoring 100's and not 50's. As an opener there is just too much pressure on him. He has to slog from the very first delivery he faces. What if one of those edges finds a fielder? That's what happened against India. Open the innigs with Ian Bell, and let Kevin do his thing in the middle overs.

  • kimjones on March 3, 2011, 14:32 GMT

    The logic behind your comments on Trott are a bit absurd. But for balance, remember that in OD games against test nations, hes been out for less than twenty 8 times. England have taken full advantage of removing the Trott blockage by winning one of these 8 games.

  • Something_Witty on March 3, 2011, 14:31 GMT

    I think Trott can take some of the blame for England's failures in the ODI's recently. He's just not good enough in the slog overs. On a pitch that flat, against a very mediocre bowling attack, 92 at a run a ball is NOT a great score. Trott is fine if you want someone to tick over in the middle overs on a pitch with a bit of spice in it, but on these flat decks, you need aggressive, domineering batsmen. Trott is neither of these things. All that said, 328 should have been a defendable score. It really doesn't help when your attack has as much penetrative power as a butter knife on a titanium door. Nor does it help that the captain made bundles and bundles of schoolboy errors that anyone with half an eye for captaincy could have pointed out. And it helps even less when the fielders drop seven billion catches per match. England have a lot to think about, but it would take a brave man to write them off.

  • Guhah on March 3, 2011, 14:13 GMT

    Bring Flintoff Back to the team

  • 924play on March 3, 2011, 14:10 GMT

    @Winsome: I guess by 'destiny' he probably meant reaching the quarterfinals?

    ;-)

  • Guhah on March 3, 2011, 14:07 GMT

    Bring Flintoff Back to the team

  • Gokul_NITT on March 3, 2011, 14:06 GMT

    England's 'destiny' is getting out of the WC in the QF.. now they seem to get out earlier itself...

  • jackiethepen on March 3, 2011, 14:06 GMT

    I don't understand the criticism of Trott, there is no comparison between his former big scores and his score yesterday which came with a SR of 100. Trott has adapted his game well and should be praised. Bell too with his SR of 94 is learning a new game at 4 when he is used to opening the innings or batting at 3. He is now close to his SR of 100 in domestic 40 over one dayers. This is during those difficult middle overs facing spinners and slow bowling mainly. This has to be a big plus for England. KP at 2 is also finding a way to get us off to an electric start. This new line up seems to be working. The problem is elsewhere. Look at 5 and 6 where is the finisher? Only two weeks ago Flower, Strauss and Prior himself were claiming that position for Prior - brought in out of the blue by Flower. That selection has to be justified. Colly looks terrible. He should be dropped for Bopara or rested or whatever. As for Tredwell, Wright and Yardy. Why are they in the squad? Ask some questions.

  • broadside_attack on March 3, 2011, 13:25 GMT

    Winsome - I believe the 'destiny' Andrew is referring to in the headline is the supposedly pre-ordained march to the knockout stages that England's complacency is threatening. Though obviously it's highly tongue-in-cheek after the fielding debacles of the first three matches..

    As as been said already, Trott cannot be considered our problem given the sensible solidity he provides in the top-order (something which Alex Cusack showed the benefit of yesterday). Our problem has been bowlers bowling either too full, or giving too much width with their shorter deliveries (Broad in particular, though he is clearly still suffering), and not having a true finisher. I would persist with Collingwood, because he is still more capable than any who played yesterday at finding the boundary. Moreover, he should have bowled out, given how O'Brien was thriving on pace. Bopara should come in for Yardy, who adds absolutely nothing to this England team, and Shahzad should replace Broad until he is fitter.

  • SachinIsTheGreatest on March 3, 2011, 13:11 GMT

    I agree with Donald Chapman. As a No.3 Trott's job is to play a long innings while others stroke the boundaries in cameos. besides some toothless bowling, the problem is with Collingwood, Prior and Yardy. Bopara's dropping after the first match is looking very silly indeed.

  • on March 3, 2011, 12:48 GMT

    The problem in all three of England's innings so far has been the lack of a finisher. They've got good scores in each innings, but in every case they could and should have got more.

    Ravi Bopara is not a perfect cricketer but surely he should now come in for Yardy. He'll at the required fresh impetus at the end of the innnings and I'm pretty sure he can fumble together 0.5 wickets a game and get hit for around 6.5-7 an over which is all Yardy has done so far.

  • on March 3, 2011, 12:11 GMT

    You can't seriously blame Trott for England's current predicament. 328 should be defendable by full time professional cricketers against an associate nation. You can argue about his score in hindsight, but surely the message from Flower, Strauss et al was get England above 300, which he and Bell managed.

    Bopara should come into the side for either Yardy or Collingwood. Both are barely contributing with bat or ball at the moment. And Tredwell has to be one of the most curious squad selections in recent times. Average bowler, below average batsman and his fielding is... well I would suggest that there could have been two more run outs yesterday had the ball found it's way to someone more capable in the field than Tredwell.

  • on March 3, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    England are missing one big hitter surely in the middle order but their batting is nonetheless intimidating...bowling and fielding is sure to get better after this mauling.

  • Winsome on March 3, 2011, 10:58 GMT

    I don't understand the use of 'destiny' in this headline. Is it England's destiny to win the World Cup? Is that what it means?

    How can the reporter know that?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Winsome on March 3, 2011, 10:58 GMT

    I don't understand the use of 'destiny' in this headline. Is it England's destiny to win the World Cup? Is that what it means?

    How can the reporter know that?

  • on March 3, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    England are missing one big hitter surely in the middle order but their batting is nonetheless intimidating...bowling and fielding is sure to get better after this mauling.

  • on March 3, 2011, 12:11 GMT

    You can't seriously blame Trott for England's current predicament. 328 should be defendable by full time professional cricketers against an associate nation. You can argue about his score in hindsight, but surely the message from Flower, Strauss et al was get England above 300, which he and Bell managed.

    Bopara should come into the side for either Yardy or Collingwood. Both are barely contributing with bat or ball at the moment. And Tredwell has to be one of the most curious squad selections in recent times. Average bowler, below average batsman and his fielding is... well I would suggest that there could have been two more run outs yesterday had the ball found it's way to someone more capable in the field than Tredwell.

  • on March 3, 2011, 12:48 GMT

    The problem in all three of England's innings so far has been the lack of a finisher. They've got good scores in each innings, but in every case they could and should have got more.

    Ravi Bopara is not a perfect cricketer but surely he should now come in for Yardy. He'll at the required fresh impetus at the end of the innnings and I'm pretty sure he can fumble together 0.5 wickets a game and get hit for around 6.5-7 an over which is all Yardy has done so far.

  • SachinIsTheGreatest on March 3, 2011, 13:11 GMT

    I agree with Donald Chapman. As a No.3 Trott's job is to play a long innings while others stroke the boundaries in cameos. besides some toothless bowling, the problem is with Collingwood, Prior and Yardy. Bopara's dropping after the first match is looking very silly indeed.

  • broadside_attack on March 3, 2011, 13:25 GMT

    Winsome - I believe the 'destiny' Andrew is referring to in the headline is the supposedly pre-ordained march to the knockout stages that England's complacency is threatening. Though obviously it's highly tongue-in-cheek after the fielding debacles of the first three matches..

    As as been said already, Trott cannot be considered our problem given the sensible solidity he provides in the top-order (something which Alex Cusack showed the benefit of yesterday). Our problem has been bowlers bowling either too full, or giving too much width with their shorter deliveries (Broad in particular, though he is clearly still suffering), and not having a true finisher. I would persist with Collingwood, because he is still more capable than any who played yesterday at finding the boundary. Moreover, he should have bowled out, given how O'Brien was thriving on pace. Bopara should come in for Yardy, who adds absolutely nothing to this England team, and Shahzad should replace Broad until he is fitter.

  • jackiethepen on March 3, 2011, 14:06 GMT

    I don't understand the criticism of Trott, there is no comparison between his former big scores and his score yesterday which came with a SR of 100. Trott has adapted his game well and should be praised. Bell too with his SR of 94 is learning a new game at 4 when he is used to opening the innings or batting at 3. He is now close to his SR of 100 in domestic 40 over one dayers. This is during those difficult middle overs facing spinners and slow bowling mainly. This has to be a big plus for England. KP at 2 is also finding a way to get us off to an electric start. This new line up seems to be working. The problem is elsewhere. Look at 5 and 6 where is the finisher? Only two weeks ago Flower, Strauss and Prior himself were claiming that position for Prior - brought in out of the blue by Flower. That selection has to be justified. Colly looks terrible. He should be dropped for Bopara or rested or whatever. As for Tredwell, Wright and Yardy. Why are they in the squad? Ask some questions.

  • Gokul_NITT on March 3, 2011, 14:06 GMT

    England's 'destiny' is getting out of the WC in the QF.. now they seem to get out earlier itself...

  • Guhah on March 3, 2011, 14:07 GMT

    Bring Flintoff Back to the team

  • 924play on March 3, 2011, 14:10 GMT

    @Winsome: I guess by 'destiny' he probably meant reaching the quarterfinals?

    ;-)