Four years on, England still refuses to adapt

England’s World Cup campaign is wobbling, with the No.1 ranked ODI side a chance to miss the semi-finals following their heavy loss to arch-rivals Australia.

The hosts’ current woes certainly don’t stem from lack of talent. They boast some of the most explosive limited overs batsmen in world cricket, anchored by the reliability of veterans Eoin Morgan and Joe Root. Their bowling attack – although not the most dangerous in the tournament – is blessed with healthy doses of pace, accuracy and guile.

No, once again England’s problem is rooted in their approach to the game.

Let’s rewind to the 2015 edition of the World Cup, when England were humiliatingly bundled out at the group stage following losses to Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and then-minnows Bangladesh. Bear in mind that the 2015 format allowed for eight teams to go through to the knockout rounds, as opposed to just four in 2019.

A quick look at England’s starting line-ups for that tournament tells you everything you need to know. Their batting was led by safe, one-dimensional types such as Ian Bell, Gary Ballance (a fitting replacement for the similarly dour Alastair Cook) and James Taylor, with career ODI strike rates of 77, 67 and 80 respectively.

New captain Eoin Morgan’s batting had been dire before the tournament, with only two 20-plus scores in his previous 12 innings, and he continued to struggle under the burden of captaincy. Alex Hales, Jos Buttler, Moeen Ali and Joe Root all took part but only Moeen and Root were entrusted with regular responsibilities in the top six.

At the same time, England’s bowling attack was still relying heavily on the services of James Anderson and Stuart Broad. Both have been fine cricketers across multiple formats but neither of them were likely to trouble good sides on the hard, flat wickets served up in Australia. Predictably enough, they each struggled for penetration.

The England mindset was still stuck in years past, where scores of 260 were regularly defended and a strike rate of 80 was perfectly acceptable. Whether through stubbornness or ignorance they simply hadn’t kept pace with developments in the modern game.

Flat, batting-friendly surfaces meant that working the ball around at 4.5 runs an over was no longer enough. Bowlers who relied almost solely on finding a consistent line and length were becoming cannon fodder for powerful, inventive batsmen wielding increasingly large lumps of willow.

In 2015, England’s inability to adapt resulted in an embarrassingly early exit.

To the ECB’s credit, the penny subsequently dropped. By the English summer of 2016 the Three Lions had bolstered their squad with the likes of Jason Roy, Jonny Bairstow, Ben Stokes, Adil Rashid, Liam Plunkett and David Willey. Gone were the steady favourites, replaced with players who fit the mould of the more dynamic, aggressive modern cricketer.

Their theory went something like this: bowlers simply had to limit damage through variations in pace and length, while batsmen plundered a path to victory, thrashing deliveries that barely deviated in the air or off the seam. England had landed on a formula that would see them rise to No.1 in the world by May 2018, more than five years after they had last held that mantle.

In the 2019 World Cup, though, England is once again suffering due to their inflexibility, albeit at the other end of the spectrum. Instead of being too cautious they have shown a lack of respect for the conditions in which the tournament is being played.

The belligerent batting and smart death bowling of the pre-tournament favourites is tailored to the lifeless wickets that now plague international limited overs cricket. This past month, the English weather and the ICC’s pitch control have combined to breathe life into those batting-friendly surfaces on which the hosts have thrived.

(Photo by Gareth Copley-IDI/IDI via Getty Images)

The ball hasn’t come onto the bat in the manner to which players have become accustomed, with pitches often conducive to seam movement, offering extra bounce or being two-paced. Planting the front foot and hitting through the line has become a liability for new batsmen and the spoils have gone to those sides willing to build a platform before launching, in a manner more reminiscent of Australia’s winning formula of four years ago.

England’s latest loss highlighted just where their problem lies. Bowling first on a lively deck, their pacemen stuck to their default back-of-a-length tactics, as if trying to prevent an explosive start instead of exploiting the seam movement on offer.

When false shots were induced from the Australian openers the ball had generally deviated too far to take the edge. The irony is that Jimmy Anderson’s old-fashioned approach would have been perfectly suited to this particular Lord’s surface.

As Australia’s innings wore on, England found themselves in the more familiar situation of needing to contain the opposition. It’s no surprise that this was where their bowling performance improved. That particular aspect of the game is something to which the England attack is well suited.

The problem was that the damage had already been done. Australia’s solid stands for the first two wickets meant that regular dismissals through the final 18 overs while looking for quick runs didn’t derail the innings, even if the Aussies would have been disappointed not to reach 300.

Aaron Finch and David Warner had given England’s batsmen a blueprint for how to deal with the conditions but they clearly hadn’t been paying attention. In quick succession they gifted their first four wickets to Jason Behrendorff and Mitchell Starc, playing as if the pitch was just another road.

James Vince and Root were both beaten by lovely inswingers but each was guilty of attempting to drive the ball out in front of their body. Morgan took on a rare bouncer before he was set and top edged it down fine leg’s throat. Bairstow, having seen three partners fall victim to their own aggression, undid his more watchful start by trying to pull a ball from well outside off stump.

Nothing about England’s approach to the first 20 overs of each innings suggested that they were willing to adapt to the conditions. They didn’t threaten Australia’s stumps and they refused to reign in their attacking batting mindset. Aggression is an important part of limited overs cricket but in such a crucial match, nuance was a must.

England is too good to bow out of this tournament without a fight. A team doesn’t become No.1 in the world purely because they are good at piling up big scores on flat wickets.

They have the talent. The question is, are they willing to adapt?