Talking Cricket: Oval vanishing act required for England wizards (11 August 1999)

11 August 1999

Talking Cricket: Oval vanishing act required for England wizards

Tim Rice

It was the incident that led to Richie Benaud on Channel 4 describing the England team as "wizards" that best illustrated and encapsulated why even the most generous of souls is beginning to find it a struggle to warm to their current side.

It was around five to one, just before lunch, on the fourth day at Old Trafford and New Zealand were cruising towards 500. With nine wickets down, aiming for a declaration must have been on the captain's mind. The problem was, it was mainly on the England captain's mind.

Peter Such was to bowl the over that began at 12.55pm and there was speculation in the tastefully furnished commentary premises (maybe a tad too much autumnal brown) that this might be the last over before the interval. Richie opined that it would be an act of wizardry if Mark Butcher and Such could drag the off-spinner's six balls out for five whole minutes, and many a viewer must have wondered why they would wish to do so. Surely 12 balls would give the home team twice as much chance of taking the final wicket? If they failed, did it matter whether New Zealand were 298 runs ahead or 310? And the crowd - would they (both of them) not appreciate the extra few balls which would at least give them 500 to cheer if not an England breakthrough?

But, astonishingly, England did it. Richie had to acknowledge the wizardry. One of the greatest cricket captains of all time had finally seen himself outclassed in one department of the game, viz time wasting, by England's current - albeit acting - leader. A profoundly depressing over of masterly dilatoriness was served up with boorish lack of consideration. Pointless field-placing discussions took place between every ball, as if the England side had shown themselves to be such gazelles that where they were to stand in preparation for a leap actually mattered.

Could Butcher and Such not hear the cries of 'get on with it' in hundreds of thousands of homes, from a million sofas, the length and breadth of England? If denying New Zealand six more deliveries before lunch was the prime objective, then why not let a fast bowler send them down and use up the five minutes more or less legitimately? Those six balls were the last-straw saloon. There is an audience out there, or was, that is paying to be entertained, to be inspired.

And the over made one think of other daft moments which have blighted this summer and, given the dwindling band of home supporters, the impression that this side is, er, dim. This may well be a very unfair resume but it is not a surprising one given the evidence, such as a young lad being needlessly left on 99 not out, inane cries of "well bowled" following virtually every ball, however innocuous, and an inability to remember that spitting is just as likely to be picked up by the cameras as a spanking cover drive.

No one believes England are not trying to do their best; many believe those chosen are the most talented we can select. But someone in the camp needs to get a grip on the outward presentation of the show.

Neither do columns in the press by current members of the team do anything for the case for the defence. Inevitably and understandably, they reveal nothing beyond 'we were gutted' or 'we feel we are turning the corner', and come over, unfairly, as a whinge. Either they are written by the players themselves, who should have other things on their minds like batting, or they are written by somebody else, in which case the views are even less valuable.

Of course, there are wider problems afoot with which even Einstein as Hussain's stand-in would have struggled - the structure of England's domestic cricket, and the very fabric of Britain's society, so changed even since England last held the Ashes, let alone since the glory days of the Fifties. It is now not politically correct to blow England's trumpet in any field whatsoever. Then, New Zealand are a good side.

Butcher's post-match comments at Old Trafford were encouragingly intelligent and honest. He was on a hiding to nothing as a one-night-stand captain and it is to be hoped next time he gets a bite at the cherry his own form is such that he will have one fewer problem on his mind. In the meantime, what now? Sack the lot? Major changes along the lines of the 1966 clear-out that brought in Brian Close as captain for the last Test and turned around a summer of disaster? But then there was a chap named T W Graveney around who chipped in with 165; in 1999, the biggest batting cheer of the match for an Englishman went to a No 10 who scored precisely nothing.

To lance the boil of gloom, let there be total change for the Oval; a sabbatical for the entire world-weary Old Trafford lot. They can all be assured they are still in the frame, if not on the plane, for South Africa. The qualification for selection for the fourth Test is to have not taken part in the first three. Such a daring move would delight those who have to pay to watch and those who are paid to watch - two groups that Team England need to get off their backs. And many of these who have struggled this summer will be thus relaxed and refreshed for the challenge of Donald and Pollock.

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