Croft's recall illustrates England's lack of spin options
Robert Croft: Needs to impress in Sri Lanka Photo © Paul McGregor CricInfo Ltd
George Dobell
19-Dec-2000
Robert Croft: Needs to impress in Sri Lanka Photo © Paul McGregor CricInfo Ltd. |
It is tempting to view the recall of Robert Croft for the England
tour of Sri Lanka as a sign that the cupboard is bare when it comes to
English spinners.
Croft has been tried and found wanting at international level. It's not that
he's a bad bowler - far from it - but he lacks any sort of penetration. He
has experimented with greater variety, but without the huge spin of a
Muralitharan, or the mystery of a Saqlain, he has often appeared rather
tame. Certainly he is unlikely to bowl anywhere near the amount of
"four-balls" that Salisbury produced, but is he likely to bowl out Test
sides?
Croft debuted for England in 1996 against Pakistan. He impressed everyone
with his enthusiasm and positive outlook, and performed with merit on the
tour of New Zealand and Zimbabwe that followed. It has, in truth, been a
tale of diminishing rewards ever since. The flow of wickets dried up: his
strike-rate now stands at one wicket every 17 overs.
He won his recall in the summer of 2000 on the back of an excellent
performance against the West Indians for Glamorgan. On a dusty Old Trafford
pitch, however, he bowled 47 overs, taking 1-124. He was dropped afterwards,
and made some much-publicised negative comments about the England set-up.
Croft has backtracked since then, and blamed "media misrepresentation" for
the furore that followed.
"What I said at the end of the season was a little bit of a clearing of the
throat," he said yesterday (18th December). "With the benefit of hindsight
there are certain things I would have done differently. After I got it off
my chest I spoke, pretty quickly, to David Graveney and Darren Gough to let
them know that nothing personal was meant at either The Management or
players.
"I have always regarded myself as someone who has played with pride and
given as much as one can give to the other players. Pride and passion
sometimes get the better of me and I have sometimes got carried away and
paid the price.
"The captain and coach (Duncan Fletcher) have done a fantastic job so far
and I am sure they have already got a strategy in motion for this series,"
he said.
It is likely that Croft and the newcomer Jason Brown will be competing for
the
role of partner for Ashley Giles, who is now established as England's number
one spinner. David Graveney has even suggested that all three could play if
the conditions are appropriate (perhaps a warning to Caddick that a haul of
a wicket
a Test will not do), but it is likely that Croft and Brown will be fighting
for one spot.
Brown's rise has been rapid. He started the 2000 season in Second XI
cricket for Northamptonshire, but when former team-mate Michael Davies lost
form, Brown took his
chance brilliantly. He claimed over 60 first-class wickets at an average of
barely 20, outshining off-spinning partner Graeme Swann, himself an
international player, in the process.
Brown is a bold selection, having not played a full season of first-class
cricket, but he is the better long-term bet as he is untainted by defeat,
and is a more aggressive bowler. He describes himself as "an off-spinner
that likes to give the ball a big rip. I like to see the ball turn, which is
a big aspect of my game."
Croft (30) is actually only four years older than Brown, who had to wait a
while
before his first-class career began. And many will feel that irrespective of
their abilities, Peter Such is the premier off-spinner in English cricket.
The feeling persists around Britain that Phil Tufnell is still the best slow
bowler available. Few English spinners have produced match-winning
performances in Test cricket, but Tufnell has done so on several occasions,
most recently when he bowled Australia out at The Oval the last time they
toured (1997).
The view that he is ignored due to his image as a 'maverick' no
longer holds water. The inclusiveness of the Hussain-Fletcher partnership
(the rehabilitation of Caddick and Croft are examples) suggests that
performance is the key to his exclusion. Certainly Tufnell's tactic of
bowling into the rough outside the right-hander's leg stump reaped scant
rewards, and though his fielding has improved, his batting ability remains
negligible. He has wilted under pressure in the past (his performances in
India and the West Indies on helpful pitches were disappointing) and,
crucially, his Test bowling average is only marginally better (36.78) than
Robert Croft's (39.92).
Croft has the advantage over all these competitors of having some ability
with the bat. His innings in the Old Trafford Test against South Africa in
1998 was vital in saving the Test, and helped secure an eventual series win.
However the Australians showed that he was uncomfortable against the short
ball, and his form deteriorated sharply.
He has worked hard at his batting in recent times, weighing in with valuable
runs against the West Indies, and two fifties during the county season. His
form is still some way short of his pre-Test days, when he hit 143 against
Somerset (1995) and David Lloyd talked of him as a future scorer of Test
centuries.
Certainly Sri Lanka will be crucial for Croft. The pitches will take spin,
and Giles has raised the expectations of what spinners can achieve with bat
and ball. The selectors have shown that they will compromise their policy of
stability of selection if necessary, with Pakistan almost certainly being
Ian Salisbury's last chance. Sri Lanka may similarly prove to be a last
outing for Croft unless he can rediscover the form that first brought him to
the attention of the national selectors.