England have proven that they are the real deal, silenced any doubters and given the Australians a harsh reality check in this Ashes series.
Few would dispute that the skill of the England players is superior to that of their Australian counterparts when assessed on an individual basis.
Only skipper Michael Clarke would be a walk up starter in this English outfit. Ryan Harris has done his best to address this significant imbalance.
The superior performance of the England players has helped hide some of the tactical frailties of their captain, Alastair Cook. Cook has been fortunate to inherit a settled England side at the peak of its powers.
Internal politics appear to be a thing of the past (in stark contrast to their opponents), and most of the players are in career best form. Apart from overseeing England’s come-from-behind victory against India earlier this year, Cook’s abilities as a captain and tactician have not yet been tested.
To give credit where it is due, Cook has used the DRS sensibly, sticking to a set procedure of consulting wicket-keeper and bowler and only seeking a review where there is a unanimous decision to do so. Cook is also an outstanding batsman with a temperament and hunger for runs which the current crop of Australian batsmen should be aspiring to emulate.
However, this author has been somewhat perplexed by the tactics employed by Cook during this series, particularly so at Durham.
Take Day four of the Durham Test for example. At 8 for no wicket, Stuart Broad, who “had the ball talking” for most of the match, produced a rare bad ball which was summarily dispatched by David Warner to the point boundary.
Cook’s reaction was to immediately employ a cover in substitution for an extra body in the slip cordon, in what can only be described as a negative move. It brought back memories of the tactics often employed by a recent Australian captain who will be better remembered for his batting prowess, rather than any particular tactical nous.
Durham was a new ball wicket where bowlers and slip fielders always felt in the game. The ball had a tendency to jag off a length, rather than being two paced and holding up on the surface. At Durham, field positions such as cover and mid-wicket are run saving positions, rather than realistic dismissal positions.
The author was further perplexed by the tactics adopted when Graeme Swann was bowling during the fourth innings. At one stage, there was a ring field on the on side when Swann was bowling to left handers, Warner and Khawaja. This can only be described in the nicest possible way as conservative.
On a turning wicket with inviting footmarks on a left-hander’s off-stump, I would have thought that leaving the leg side vacant and encouraging the batsmen to play against the turn through the gap would have heightened their chance of dismissal. In fact, Khawaja’s downfall in this series has been his tendency to play across the line to Swann, rather than with a straight bat.
Australia have not been out-maneuvered in a tactical sense, but have been unable to counter the skill and variety of the English attack. If Australia can begin to reduce the skill imbalance prior to the English touring down under, then the tactical frailties of the England captain may come to the fore.
Australia have superior “on-field” leadership. Michael Clarke has demonstrated during his reign in charge that he is a proactive captain who is not willing to let the game simply drift by.
Although some of Clarke’s decisions may be regarded as unorthodox at times, they are generally made with a wicket-taking, and not run-saving intention in mind. Despite the dominance of his bowling attack, the former does not currently appear to be at the forefront of the English skipper’s mind.
Chris
Guest
His tactics have worked. What else is there? The brilliant tactics of Clarke have allowed Bell to score 143 runs to third man.
Blaze
Guest
Wouldn't there be a need to be a good tactician to be classified as an excellent captain? Just because you score runs and are liked by your peers seems to be only half the job of captaincy to me....?
GiantScrub
Guest
No, his analogy was terrible and confusing, but his actual point was that captaincy is not the same thing as tactics. Cook is a crap tactician but an excellent captain.
Blaze
Guest
So your saying that cook is a better captain because he is naturally an opening batsman whereas Clarke is not and therefore cannot be in the "frontline"? Clarke on many occasions since being captain has racked up huge scores "leading the way" just because its lower down the order is meaningless...
James
Guest
i think cook is a very solid dependable captain. he leads by example and inspires the players around him which is hugely important, the most important thing infact in my opinion. the english players not only seem to like him but more importantly respect him. thats all you really need from a captain in the modern game. tactically hes ordinary but being a leader and getting the most out of his players is more important to me than being a tactical genius. also which english players are saving cook by being in 'career best form'? bell. cook, trott, prior, anderson are all arguably in career worst form or at least last 3 years worse form easily. root and bairstow are playing every ordinarily though i forgive that to a degree because of the failures of those 4 leaders mentioned before. swann is as always solid he is just very dependabley good. kp scored hugely in one, decently in another and then failed every other time which is par of the course for him. bresnan very ordinary this series and the same with broad in the first 2 tests.
Chris
Guest
You've expressed it much better than I did. Excellent.
Col
Guest
There is more to captaincy than just on field tactics. I agree that Cook struggles in the field. He can often look confused. Is often too reactive and at times you get then sense he is not in total control of what is happening. Clarke is exceptional in my opinion. He gambles at times, but you get the sense he, and he alone, is calling the shots, and knows what he is doing. As a captain though, you need to get the best out of your players. You need to know which buttons to push for each player to perform at their best. You need to lead. In this area, Cook is far superior to Clarke. Cook leads from the front with the bat, he paves the way for the others. Clarke prefers to come in down the order and either rescue an innings under the pump, or let the other pave the way for him. Cook built his game on concentration (he was actually a stroke maker when he first started) to allow the other stroke makers in the team freedom to play their game. Cook is a great communicator. There are just as big ego's in that English dressing room as there are in the Aussie room, yet Cook has them playing as a tight unit. We know the struggles Clarke has had in this regard. Not usually one for military parallels with sport, but if both teams were old school armies going into battle, Cook would be at the front on horseback, paving the way for his fellows behind him. Clarke would be at the back of his troops, readying himself to save the day. I know which one I would prefer to lead me. Cooks on field tactics may not have been the reason for Englands win in Durham, however his leadership is a major reason why the England side has out performed the Aussies.
Chris
Guest
I think Cook can certainly be criticised, don't get me wrong, I just think the meme that seems to have taken hold is highly excessive. For example, Clarke brings on Steve Smith and takes a wicket and he's a genius, Cook brings on Joe Root who takes a wicket and....silence. And I do think it's simply wrong to say that he just got lucky. England bowled poorly between lunch and tea and so he sat in the game to restrict the runs and then struck. He could have carried on attacking, Warner goes along at 7 an over and the game is lost. It's just a tactic, and one that worked. I absolutely don't agree he did nothing. Australia were a long way from their target and he just squeezed until Australia cracked. It's just not eye catching. Saying England had the stronger side doesn't even work for away series in India. Australia had the stronger side there often enough but didn't win. Cook did. And England ain't that great Australian team. It seems to me that he can't get credit for anything.
JGK
Roar Guru
Double post on the stoopid iPad.
JGK
Roar Guru
Cook has lost one test against that lot because he has the better team! Isn't that the point of this article? After tea at Chester-le-Street he pulled a good move by bringing Bres which got Warner out. But overall he still got lucky and spent most o the first 150 runs of that innings hoping for an Aust mistake. Don't get me wrong, I think Clarke is a hugely overrated captain. He could have turned that Test on its head by coming in at no 3 himself. And his persistence with a deep square leg was bizarre.
Chris
Guest
Denying that anything good that happens to England has anything to do with captaincy, yet anything positive for Australia is because of captaincy is rather blinkered. At times, McCullum, Dhoni and Clarke have all been lauded as much better captains, but Cook has beaten them all, often in close matches, and lost the grand total of one Test against the lot of them. I know which I prefer. Did you even read the link, where Cook's captaincy was praised for what happened after tea? Doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. You're saying Cook is negative (but winning), I'm saying when Clarke had a chance to win, he bottled it in favour of not losing.
JGK
Roar Guru
But it only worked because of a great spell from Broad which came out of no where. As I say, he got lucky. Re Clarke, which game are you talking about? Old Trafford? If so, I disagree with your analysis.
Chris
Guest
There's a fairly of strong couple of reactions to that line: http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/662195.html and from Nasser Hussain: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2393756/NASSER-HUSSAIN-No-captain-ticked-box-lay-Cook--hes-winner.html At Chester le Street England did what they often do, try to squeeze, suffocate and then strike. As Dobell says, a boa constrictor can be just as deadly as a lion. Just because it doesn't look flash with amazingly different field placings doesn't mean it's not effective. There are times when I wonder just like anyone else, but it is effective and it works. What more do people want? I will continue to point out that supposedly super attacking and creative Michael Clarke, when he had control of a game Australia had to win, batted on far too long and too slowly, blowing any chance of winning. Now, you can defend that for all sorts of reasons, but it's utterly bizarre that Cook keeps getting stick for everything, and this keeps being ignored.
JGK
Roar Guru
Have to agree. Cook is an ordinary captain. He basically let Australia get to 0/100 in Chester-le-Street without taking a risk before Swann and Broad bailed him out. But it's like putting Michael Schumacher in a Minardi, no amount superior driving skill can overcome the difference in horsepower.