The England cricket team have lost virtually everything: their form, their minds, their No.3 batsman, their hunger, their pride, their mateship and camaraderie, and now the Ashes. So, what now for England?
They have been beaten pillar to posts by an Australian team that has found a renewed sense of clarity, form, and sheer aggression with bat, ball and in the field.
They have shown England how you are meant to win playing cricket here in Australia – by asserting yourself on the opposition, taking the game away from the opposition and draining the opposition, physically, psychologically and mentally.
England have to take a leaf out of the book of the Australian team by picking a team that has players known for their aggressive intent, and by giving players the necessary clarity to produce the form to win Test matches for your country.
To achieve this, you must have a core of very experienced players, still at the peak of their powers, who can still have an influential impact on the game to help England win games of cricket.
Looking at the current England Test Squad, these players are Alastair Cook, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, Stuart Broad and Tim Bresnan.
I don’t understand why people are questioning the place of Kevin Pietersen in the England team. In an article by BBC Cricket Correspondent Jonathan Agnew, he questioned Pietersen’s ability as a team player and his place in the team.
“Pietersen bats as if he is simply taking on the bowler and fielders, rather than considering the team situation,” Agnew wrote. “Now, you can have cricketers who put themselves first, most often in a team that is winning and can be accommodating.
“However, when you are being hammered, you need players that will toe the line. For that reason, England have to decide if they can continue or move on without him. They have a big decision to make.”
To answer your view, Mr Agnew, Pietersen has always been a man who bats in an aggressive manner, challenging any man and his dog to raise their level in an attempt to beat him at his own game.
In an Australian cricketing environment, this would have seen him average over 50 runs per innings/dismissal, probably closer to 55.
His current team environment, however, is ‘suffocating’, both in terms of psychological stability of players, as well the playing ability of the majority of the player group.
This is the key reason why Pietersen is not only lacking clarity and understanding of his role within the team, but why the team has been thrashed and utterly humiliated in this series so far.
It is clear that Pietersen should remain in the England team, but unfortunately that isn’t clear to people like Agnew.
Some media figures like to see their own men and women lose in sporting contests, so that they can influence the powerful and faceless men within their sporting hierarchy to get rid of people, who are allegedly not team players and possess uncontrollable egos.
As for the rest of the England team, you need some younger players in the team to build for the future.
I would keep Joe Root and Ben Stokes, but I would also bring Steven Finn into the team for James Anderson, as he has lacked the hunger and the want to succeed on this tour.
Gary Ballance should also replace Michael Carberry, who I feel doesn’t have the tools to be successful at this level long term. He didn’t cash in when he got himself set in those few innings that he did get in.
Matt Prior is an interesting one because I feel that he is a very good player – full of brilliance with the bat and usually good with the gloves. Since the start of the English summer, however, he has had an awful time with the bat, which is now affecting his glovework.
Prior may need to have a break away from the game, to allow him to relax and recharge the batteries, so I would bring in Jonny Bairstow for the final two Tests of this series, then assess the form of both Prior and Bairstow before their home series against Sri Lanka.
As for Graeme Swann, I feel he should remain in the side as I feel there is no one better to take his spot in the team.
Here is my England team for the fourth and fifth Test Matches:
1. A. Cook (c)
2. J. Root
3. I. Bell
4. K. Pietersen
5. G. Ballance
6. B. Stokes
7. J. Bairstow (wk)
8. T. Bresnan
9. S. Broad (fitness pending)
10. G. Swann
11. S. Finn
Ryan Eckford
Roar Guru
Hello WoobliesFan, I agree with most of what you are saying, and England were definitely not the next dominant side in world cricket, and you could argue that no side has been dominant since that great Australian side. I don't necessarily think that Lehmann is a legend, but has got Australia back to the attitude they used to have. However, Lehmann has shown everybody that Mickey Arthur was not a good international coach at all, not allowing players to reach their full potential for both South Africa and Australia. Arthur I think is better coaching children rather than adults because that was the way he treated adults involved in both the South African and Australian set-ups.
WoobliesFan
Guest
Ryan, Nice article......but your moving deck chairs on the Titanic. Firstly, England's issue is the same as it was post 2005 - utter arrogance and complacency. That's problem number one. They pumped this lot up in the press like they were the next coming of Australia 87-2007. Yeh right. Secondly, his side is done for 3-4 years minimum. They can't match this Aussie side anymore. The attitude and mental-fortitude that Lehman has instilled back into the Aussie team is utterly devastating and England-destroying. The English absolute fear this type of Australia tam, where ZERO mercy is shown. Lehman is a legend and it will only get better. Bye bye England for years to come...mark my words.
Tristan
Guest
Rather than form, I suspect Anderson is just buggered. In the last couple of years he's bowled more Test match overs than any other bowler. The batsmen aren't giving him enough time between innings. Similar thing happened to Flintoff towards the end of his career. He played his best as part of a five man attack. In a weaker four man attack later it was hard not to overbowl Flintoff every time you needed a wicket. He broke down from the workload. On the plus side, if Stokes continues his early promise England should be able to play a five-man attack and use the likes of Anderson and Finn as the weapons they are instead of as work horses.
art pagonis
Guest
Have you got rocks in your head....England don't want to drop anyone except maybe Bresnan, play Rankin and start hitting Aussie batters in the helmet. They have been so passive it makes Englishmen puke!
Pclifto
Guest
+1
Statistic Skeptic
Guest
Carberry has done more than enough to keep his opening position. He's had three games in Australia in a team that's getting a thorough rodgering... but is still their third best batsman behind Stokes and Bell. He's also faced more balls than any other batsman except Root.
Richard
Guest
This article is nonsense. Your justifications make no sense! As an example. You would drop Carberry, who has a better average in this series than all the top order batsmen bar Bell, that includes Cook, Petersen, Root, Yet you would include Cook Bell and Pietersen - who you allege are at the peak of their powers - despite being batsmen with career averages in the high 40s but down in 20s here! As for your defence of Pietersen - his style of batting has hardly scored him a plethora of runs to date - he will always be criticised when he does not score runs, in part because of the self indulgent type of person he appears to be. In simple terms it appears you are picking players based on a perceived higher class to which they are not living up to. Which to me justifies their non selection. We know what they are capable of and they are not delivering. Which brings us to the old argument of class vs form. It is an interesting one in this instance. It seems that all the same arguments regarding Warner Bailey Watson Rogers Johnson Haddin seem to be forgotten because they have hit some FORM. The other key consideration is who is a better player than the incumbent and in this case there seems to be no one knocking the door down from the limited pool over here. England looked tired and mentally fragile this series and perhaps this is more the reason for their demise. Your cmment about Prior is the most insightful one here and is reflected in the entire senior cohort. The players who have played well are the fresher ones.
Nudge
Guest
Just had 10 weeks off before these ashes. Toughen up I say
Simon R
Guest
Thanks for the reply Ryan. Three things from your response. "saying things about a player who has achieved so much in his career that is completely without logic" Anderson is England's best fast bowler in terms of wickets taken, correct me if i'm wrong but wickets is the criteria for a bowler. I'm not defending Anderson and personally I don't like him, however I wouldn't write a biased article about this topic. In my opinion he hasn't taken enough wickets. Now I say biased in the terms of Pietersen not having scored much and we all know as well, runs are the criteria for a batsmen. More importantly the way and occasion he had got out. "that is difficult for some people to understand and comprehend." Having a different opinion doesn't make it right to question the intelligence of another person. Also seeing a different view doesn't make that acceptable either. You may have had good intentions however the way this was written down came across completely different. - "it is clear that Pietersen should remain in the England team, but unfortunately that isn’t clear to people like Agnew." At no time in the article was there the respect you implied to Johnathan in your response. Thirdly this is being harsh, however to say "getting their just deserves in terms of criticism." Who are you to be giving criticism? And why should anyone, let alone Johnathan Agnew care for this opinion? A lot of people have called for Pietersen to step aside or take a break. Why not mention them all, instead of singling out a professional, questioning their view point and undermining their intelligence. This article wasn't titled 'Johnathan Agnew is wrong'. Why not stick to the heading in which the article should be structured around? My belief is this is not a cricket article, instead an article making blown out predictions of Pietersen averaging 50+ with an Australian Cricketing environment. Four months ago there was no such environment. that in itself is a bold statement.
Ryan Eckford
Roar Guru
without basis instead of with basis.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
What I like about your team Ryan is how much stronger the tail would be, a real Achilles' heal for the Poms at the moment. But I also liked what I saw of Carberry and would give him at least the rest of this series. So, I'd have Root down to five for Ballance and Carberry to open with Cook. Keep Bell at three.
JGK
Roar Guru
Aggrers doesn't actually say that KP must be dropped does he? I would have thought that it is fine for him to question the value of what certain players bring to a team.
Ryan Eckford
Roar Guru
I am not trying to belittle Jonathan Agnew, or anyone else for that matter. The view that he had, and what others have had on exactly the same issue has not been based on true logic, and that is difficult for some people to understand and comprehend. I have written real stories before, and many people could argue that this is a real story. I am just very disappointed by someone who I respect saying things about a player who has achieved so much in his career that is completely without logic, and with basis in trying to solve the problems with the England Cricket Team. I think the truth of what has happened on this tour for England is too hard for him and others to take, and they all had a bad day at the office, and are getting their just deserves in terms of criticism.
Simon R
Guest
"It is clear that Pietersen should remain in the England team, but unfortunately that isn't clear to people like Agnew." People with over 55 years experience in cricket and not just Australian Cricket? People with over 25 years experience as a journalist? Ryan, please specify, because your "rookie" status is given to every new Roar user. I thought the article was good, however why does it have come at the price of belittling a well respective Cricket Player/journalist. Unless you have accomplished a small portion of what Johnathan Agnew has in his life time, you shouldn't criticize. You may not agree with what he says at times, although people can say the same about your opinion. The difference is you haven't made a name of yourself on this website, let alone on your own for people to care enough. If you have an opinion, why does it need to come at the cost degrading another sports journalist. let alone a well known and respected one. Can you write a real story, not one based on a journalist comment? I'm sure Agnew's article was professional and at no ones expense, besides the sportsman the 'Sports' article was designed for. However being a 'Journalist' in Australia does require the ability to ridicule others accomplishments for a 'pop' news story. Journalism in Australia, mainly is a joke.
abigail
Guest
The Australian tactics of constantly attacking Swann have helped our cause considerably. Cook has been unable to use Swann to tie up one end and rotate his fast bowlers through the other. So not only have England spent a long time in the field, the fast bowlers have done a lot more bowling than they would have expected to do. Much has been spoken about our bowling plans to the various English batsmen, and how effective they have been. Equally effective are the our batsmen's plans to take down certain English bowlers.
DJW
Guest
Botham made a good point about England the other day. There bowlers have spent all but two days in the field I think he said. That is a huge workload. There batsmen haven't allowed them enough rest. Australia on the other hand have had smaller amounts of time in the field so stayed fresh. I don't think you can write Anderson off yet, he may not deliver much for the rest of the series but get him back in UK conditions with the duke and he could be lethal again. Swann is interesting, off spinners traditionally struggle in Australia so not sure how much you can gage from his performances here. Australia also now have mainly right handers which has helped.
Ryan Eckford
Roar Guru
Hello Sheek, You are 100% correct about the attitude and approach from the Australian team, and that England need to find a group of players that can play the game with the right attitude and approach to be successful at this level. As for Carberry, he needs to find the guts and determination required to succeed at this level. At the moment, I cannot see that through his eyes.
Australian Rules
Guest
Hang on...you'd drop Carberry, who has been England's most assured batsman this series, and bring in an unknown quantity in Ballance? And then, you'd replace Anderson (out of form but still England's best bowler) with Finn..?
Ryan Eckford
Roar Guru
Carberry may have shown a lot, but at this level, Test Match Cricket, you must show a lot more than a lot to succeed at this level, and so far he hasn't. You may say he is unlucky, but luck can determine whether you have success or failure. This can be determined by technique, attitude and approach among other things. So far, it is obvious just by his technique, attitude and approach that his so called 'unlucky dismissals' are no fluke.
Disco
Roar Guru
Finn, who's been bowling absolute rubbish for a year and has gone backwards under Saker's tutelage? If anyone's going to need replacing soon it's Swann who is older (34) and has had injury issues. Too early to be jettisoning Anderson. Like Prior he's probably in need of a break though.