England must seek increase in productivity (12 August 1999)

12 August 1999

England must seek increase in productivity

Simon Hughes

Scapegoat was obviously on the big chief's menu on Sunday night. Have some sympathy for the deposed England selectors, Graham Gooch and Mike Gatting. With one or two exceptions, they picked the best available for the job. It is the players who have failed, more than the men who chose them.

But one of the first tasks of the 'new' selection panel will be to assess their balance sheet. This is not a financial matter - it concerns batting and bowling productivity. To get the team in profit there will need to be some departmental rationalisation.

There may be no room for special, old-fashioned crafts. Fielding a specialist off-spinner at Old Trafford was, I have suggested, the equivalent of England going into the match with 10.5 men. This was not an intended slur on the selected protagonist, Peter Such, a dedicated and consistent cricketer and as good an exponent of orthodox off-spin as there is in the world. He bowled admirably in the match, taking four for 114, and also grasped a superb catch at long leg.

The point had more to do with the value of off-spin as a whole. The evolution of batting technique and the general interpretation of the lbw law have made it very difficult for such bowlers to take wickets unless, like Muttiah Muralitharan or Saqlain Mushtaq, they have a sleight-of-hand delivery that spins the other way. The orthodox off-spinner's stock ball turns into the right-hander, which good players prefer. Uncertain batsmen, hiding the bat behind their pads in the pretence of playing a shot, merely kick good deliveries away from just outside off stump. Seldom are they given out.

Off-spinners can be up in arms all they like, but umpires rarely oblige them. Such had several good lbw shouts as New Zealand batsmen poked at straightish, non-turning balls and were struck on the pads. But, like Robert Croft found and John Emburey before that, the officials are rarely brave or unconventional enough to raise the finger. Emburey's shrill, plaintive lbw appeal was one of the sounds of 1980s summers, but during his Test career only 16 out of over 1,000 such requests were answered in the affirmative.

Such has bowled well to take 15 wickets in his last three Tests - five in Adelaide, six in Sydney and four at Old Trafford. Though not directly Such's fault because he never had runs to play with, England lost by 205 runs in Adelaide, by 98 runs in Sydney and had their backs to the wall in Manchester. England's most recent off-spinners (Emburey, Croft and Such) all average a wicket around every 15.5 overs, the left-armer Phil Tufnell also. Seamers such as Angus Fraser, Dean Headley and Andrew Caddick average one every 10. They get them cheaper, too. Orthodox spinners, therefore, are an 'expensive' business.

One is fine, for variety's sake. Having two (in England) is a luxury, unless at least one can partially repay his 'cost' with the bat. Emburey, Geoff Miller, Eddie Hemmings and Peter Willey had Test batting averages in the twenties. Tufnell and Such's combined batting average is 11. Having both in the team does not make economic sense. In bank balance terms, England took the field at Old Trafford potentially in the red. Such had a better Test than Tufnell but the ball spinning away from the bat is generally regarded as a more lucrative currency, and Tufnell has won Test matches at the Oval before. He is an automatic choice there, though if New Zealand had a few more left-handers, Such would be a sensible alternative.

Instead, Graeme Swann, at 20 far from the finished article but an enterprising off-spinner who could in time become a reputable No 7, may well be called up.

This is hard on Such, but England are a weak batting side and every potential run counts. Orthodox off-spinners have become like wicketkeepers. They must add value. Have more than one account. Or learn to bribe umpires.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)