When I finally managed to convince my kids to turn off children’s TV and let their dad have a quick look at the cricket score on Saturday morning, Australia had just lost the wicket of George Bailey.
The score read 5-230 in the 39th over and presented a scenario where the batting side could, if a couple more wickets fell, scratch their way to around 280 or power on to a far more commanding total.
Unfortunately for those of a blue rather than yellow persuasion it was the latter as England’s death bowling, contributing healthily to the former in a cricketing sense, once again proved to be way below the required standard.
Being handed the final overs is a poisoned chalice at the best of times with harder balls and harsher fielding restrictions, but serving up length balls at an inviting pace is not a recipe for sustained success.
However, as tardy as the last 10 overs were, England didn’t help themselves by choosing to field first.
This was an admission, unwitting or otherwise, that they didn’t really, and I don’t mean outwardly but deep down, believe they could win the game. If you don’t think you can defend a score or post one that’s competitive enough then you’re in trouble. To hand over an immediate advantage when every sign points to batting first was crackers.
Whatever level of the game you play at, be it in the local park or on the grandest stage, chasing a significant total is more demanding than setting one and I’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
The conditions, as well as the opposition, have to be played to a certain extent, and Eoin Morgan’s call at the toss allowed Australia an unnecessary leg up.
That said, there’s being given the opportunity of an advantage and there’s ruthlessly grasping one, and while criticising England is all too easy, praise should be awarded to the hosts’ batting line-up.
Aaron Finch was excellent, Bailey very good (I’d still pick Michael Clarke in his place), Glenn Maxwell, with a bit of thought, was devastating and both Mitchell Marsh and Brad Haddin effective in the closing stages.
Obviously it was the performance of Finch that caught the eye and if their vanquished opponents could take anything from the contest it was they’re missing a trick at the top of the order.
As a former international bowler said to me a couple of weeks ago, “Finch isn’t technically great but he can hit a perfectly good length ball, at any stage of the innings, out of the ground”.
That, in a nutshell, is modern-day limited overs batting and it is an element that England, for all their tinkering and theorising, haven’t quite grasped. That they have Alex Hales, who isn’t inferior to Finch in any aspect bar ODI experience, sat on the sidelines only adds to the feeling that the wood can’t be seen for the trees.
Even given the manner of the defeat and the insipid nature of the performance – the increasingly impressive James Taylor aside – I don’t subscribe to the ‘change the lot of them’ theory that is the first port of call for many in the wake of a reverse.
If they had their way, Morgan et al would be put up against a wall and shot, without a moment’s consideration of the fact that they are still England’s best players.
Do England have a better new-ball bowler than Jimmy Anderson? A more accomplished keeper-batsman than Jos Buttler? A more savvy middle-order man than Joe Root? A cannier spinner than Moeen Ali? Etcetera, etcetera. No, to all of them.
Should they beat New Zealand later this week they’ll be the best thing since sliced bread again – perspective is rarely the possession of an English sports fan.
As for the tournament as a whole, if nothing else it has proven a few things. Firstly, bat is most definitely king; secondly, ODI cricket isn’t quite at death’s door; thirdly, West Indies are barely even a shadow of their former selves; and fourthly, all the jibes about umpires not knowing the rules are justified!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think the big thing the loss of an outfielder has done is remove the ability to vary bowling as much. I remember throughout the One Day triangular series in the closing overs hearing commentators reading the field to work out what the bowler was going to be trying to bowl. The extra fielder outside the circle allowed you to have a bit more all-round coverage. So you could mix up your yorkers, bouncers, and slower balls. Now it's like they almost have to set a field for bowler short or bowling full, bowling quick or bowling slow. That means the batsmen have a good idea what's coming and can set themselves for it. You can try and change it up by throwing something else in, but without a field set for that ball, you are hoping that it catches the batsman by surprise enough for them to not play it well, because if not, they can hit it easily where you have no protection. What this means is that it comes down to very fine margins of execution. I don't know how many times I've heard commentators talk about certain star players that you know exactly what they are going to try to do, but that doesn't mean you can do anything about it. Death bowling is now about that. Executing so well with the ball that even though the batsman has a really good idea what you are likely to bowl and can set themselves for it, that you do it so well that it's just too good for them. That's hard to do consistently over after over. Plus, overall, margins for error are just much smaller. Batsmen have worked out shots to balls that used to guarantee no more than a single. They can ramp a ball that would be a pretty good yorker over the keepers head for 6 and are much better at picking up low full tosses and lifting them over the fence than in the past.
BrumbyJack
Guest
Alec a very good article with all of your analysis spot on. Because of the way they played against the words best ODI team the bookies have priced them at no hope against the Indians. Which I think is ludicrous. England are $2.60 with Betfair, when their fair odds are more like $2.10, if that. So for all you English this represents pretty good value to back your team into form! If Bell, Root and Taylor can get runs on the board, the Indians will feel a lot of pressure. Quite simply India don't have the bowling attack to bowl England out. If Finn, Anderson and Broad can take quick wickets then India will really struggle.
bigbaz
Roar Guru
The new French
bigbaz
Roar Guru
Lesson 1 When you win the toss bat first Lesson 2 When you win the toss bat first Lesson 3 When you win the toss bat first
bigbaz
Roar Guru
Great post
Andrew
Guest
Don't forget Taylor i think was dropped early by Finch as well.
TheTruth
Guest
Missed the most important part of the the quote "to begin with". They had us at 3/70 (and should have been 4/70 if the Finch chance was taken) which was a very solid start, especially considering 2 of those wickets were Warner and Smith.
Don Freo
Guest
That probably encapsulates the problem. "Honestly don’t think they were that bad"... They were pathetic. If the Poms think that was 'not bad'...that's a problem. Remember, the Oz boys started bowling their giggly bowlers like Smith to help Taylor along.
TheTruth
Guest
Yup that is a squad that could have given the WC a real shake. Such a shame the ECB is more about appearances than performance
TheTruth
Guest
Honestly don't think they were that bad, at least to begin with. Remember they should have had Finch out for a duck which may well have completely changed the result. They are probably missing 2 big hitters of the ball and as others have stated Stokes really should be there, along with KP (yes I know, he will never play for them again). Their bowling line-up is very solid.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Don, as spruce points out above, it takes a truly once in a generation player to be able to continuing developing more than one skill. This is especially so when you factor in how much time they spend becoming world class fieldsman these days. Finch (I think) suggested fans come down and watch Warner, Smithie and Maxwell train in the field as it's a sight to see. I suggest it is also something that they spend hours at (to become that good). After fielding and batting, there probably isn't much time to work on bowling at all. At the same time I would think the bowlers would spend even more time on their bowling than the batsman do on their batting... This is why guys like Sobers, Miller and Kallis are talked about for generations.
ES
Guest
I think that the training associated with T20 has made batsmen better at picking the various slower balls and other variations available to bowlers, and they've developed the ability to hit a ball to a target location regardless of where it's pitched. Add to that switch-hitting, movement around the crease and what not I think that whilst death bowling skills are probably as good as they've been in the past (remember when a slower ball, a yorker and a slower ball yorker made you the king of death bowling?), the batsmen train much more diligently in counteracting these skills. As much, margin of errors are much smaller for the bowler, and there's a luck element in tricking the batsman. I think nowadays, the best death bowlers focus on wickets as much as restraint. During the commentary for yesterday's NZ and Scotland game, one of the commentators was suggesting that bouncers should be banned, as it effectively means that the batsman only has 5 balls an over to hit (apparently he's never seen a hook/pull/upper cut?) and that there's too much leniency given to bowlers down the leg side with bouncers. Eoin Morgan was saying that the balance has been shifted to the bowlers because of two new balls (I suspect that given the option, they'd prefer to be bowling with a soft, scuffed, dull pill that will potentially reverse swing at the death), and that as a result batsmen should be able to use atomic powered bats. 300 run innings are almost a par score now. It's crazy. Won't somebody think of the bowlers? Limit bat sizes, give them two bouncers per over per batsman, maybe prepare a wicket that isn't just a lifeless concrete slab. Make hitting a six a test of skill, rather than a mistimed top edge. It's certainly what I'd rather see. Give death bowlers at least half a chance.
Don Freo
Guest
Watson is a case in point. Very good at both. Steve Smith is too good a leg spin bowler to not be developing that skill. He has balance, turn and savvy. All he needs is a few bowling kms on the clock.
spruce moose
Guest
There is a difference between doing both at an elite level compared to excelling at one at the elite level and making as assessment on what will get you further in your career. Steve Smith made the right call to focus further on his batting at the expense of his 'bowling'. Perhaps someone like Shane Watson should have given up batting years ago to hone is considerably better bowling abilities and turn those tight run-constricting balls into genuine wicket deliveries. Just remember when Mitchell Johnson hit 100 in South Africa the selectors tried to turn him into an allrounder and his bowling suffered immensely.
Bobbo7
Guest
I tend to agree. If you don't back your players to put runs on the board how on earth do you expect them to chase a probable decent score? With the resources and talent they have they should be so much better
Don Freo
Guest
Mike Selvey is toffee-nosed old school. He probably thinks England still plays with, "We shall fight them on the beaches...we will never surrender" courage. This is the most pea-hearted collective to ever play for England. I'd love to watch another Eng/India game. A battle to see who can surrender first.
Don Freo
Guest
I can never understand why players just stop with a skill. Surely that was Luke Wright's ticket into the English side. Steve Smith and Cam White just stop spin bowling (although White never turned it). SOK just stopped working on his batting (basically terminated any chance of a career at the next level). Adam Voges represented Aust U19 as it's main spinner...a chinaman bowler like Hoggy...and just stopped and eventually rolled out occasional orthodox...concentrating on becoming the best batsman in Shield cricket. Hoggy's first three seasons for WA were as a middle order batsman...didn't bowl at all. (In fact when he did bowl in the nets, he bowled medium pace. It was John Inverarity who suggested he might be able to bowl Chinamen.) Why didn't he keep going with his batting? Three seasons ago, he scored 235 in one afternoon in grade cricket, the highest score ever in WA grade cricket. Why can't they do both?
Will Sinclair
Roar Guru
"England didn’t help themselves by choosing to field first. This was an admission, unwitting or otherwise, that they didn’t really, and I don’t mean outwardly but deep down, believe they could win the game." I really agree (and made the point to Mike Selvey on Twitter - he shot me down!). To my mind, it showed fear of the Aussie bowlers more than anything else. No doubt, England thought there might be something in the pitch early. But I think they were afraid of what that would mean to the Aussie bowlers, and the potential humiliation of losing early wickets in a big game in front of a huge crowd. It was fear, plain and simple. And they were absolutely no hope after that.
Dutski
Guest
Fair point Don. I was thinking of last year- 11 overs with an economy rate of 7.91. Didn't bowl this year at all.
Don Freo
Guest
An alternative for our glorious mother country would be to ask its cricketers to try and to practise. I wonder if it is within their thinking for individuals to try to improve their performance. We know their leaders, Broad, Anderson and Morgan run away from fast bowling. Perhaps they could face up to it and try competing. When Anderson and Broad go for more than 5 an over, they slip out of the attack, only to return when (or if) the tail comes in. Leadership on the field is required...not at press conferences.