Opinion
The media had a lovely time thanks to Stuart Broad’s much-discussed interview, where he expressed his feelings about not being included in the Test-playing XI.
What did this have to do with the loss England suffered in the first Test against the West Indies?
Let’s start with Broad’s situation first and the media’s part in stirring the pot.
Broad had a great Ashes series, but so did Jofra Archer. There’s also no doubt Broad had a good series in South Africa, but in the last Test England played, Mark Wood took nine wickets. In the two Tests he played in that series, Woods took 12 wickets at an average of 13.58 and a strike rate of 29.2.
The emotive words Broad used to describe his feelings have covered up the other parts of this interview that are not as exciting, but place his thoughts into proper context:
“The chairman of selectors made it clear they’re picking pitch for pitch,” he said. “The decision to go with extra pace on this pitch was based on [this pitch]…
“You can’t argue that the bowlers walking onto that field don’t deserve to play. It’s just annoying when it’s not you in that XI. It’s great to see strength and depth in the fast bowling ranks.”
In other words, according to a guy who’s played 138 times for his country, this was a perfectly reasonable decision.
Stuart Broad celebrates a wicket at the 2011 Cricket World Cup (Matthew Lewis/Getty Images)
Australia faced exactly the same dilemma in the Ashes series, with Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, James Pattinson and Peter Siddle all vying for three spots in the starting XI. That meant guys missed out and you can guarantee they’d have been “frustrated, angry, gutted”, but because they didn’t come out and allow the media to make such an issue of what they thought, this was largely glossed over, especially with Australia drawing and almost winning that series.
Were English selectors guilty of hubris?
They made three changes from the side that won the third Test in South Africa only six months earlier, by an innings. Joe Root was out and Rory Burns came in, Sam Curran was out and Jofra Archer was in while Broad was out and James Anderson was in.
With the exception of Burns coming in, which was a forced change, it’s tough to argue these other changes hurt the team, rather they should have improved it significantly. Even Burns’ inclusion at the top of the order would strengthen the opening partnership, or so they must have thought.
What part did hubris play in England’s performance? If we start with the toss, England was almost behind the eight-ball from that point.
The conditions on the first two days almost begged the captain winning the toss to bowl first. Overcast skies, dull light, rain showers which meant play was always going to be stop-start – yet Stokes chose to bat? Was he overconfident about his batting line-up? Was he being dismissive of the West Indies attack?
England may have been unlucky that Root was not captain. It’s tough for a first-up skipper to send any team into bat and those who have, including noted skippers like Ian Chappell, have found themselves losing.
There’s no doubt Stokes is an attacking payer and his instincts would have been to bowl first but what if he’d done that and lost? No, Stokes erred on the side of caution and batted first.
Were the English batsmen guilty of hubris?
England underperformed with the bat in the first innings. What’s equally clear is the West Indies used the conditions very well, keeping the pressure on through some excellent line and length bowling.
That said, there wasn’t one England player who threw their wicket away in their first innings. They were out to a combination of poor technique (perhaps down to a lack of match practice), some excellent deliveries and at least one outstanding catch.
Even though they made more runs, England’s batting in the second innings was worse than the first. At one stage they were 248 for three but all out 313, losing seven for 65. Certainly, the West Indies stuck to their task but six of the top seven got starts and at least four of them threw their wicket away. Overconfidence or a lack of concentration brought on by a lack of cricket?
England’s bowling, which is their strength, could only take 16 West Indian wickets, in conditions that should have suited their attack. If we ignore the rights and wrongs around selections and focus on results, the only bowler who did justice to his ability was Ben Stokes, who returned match figures of six for 88. Interestingly, he only bowled 24 overs out of a possible 166. Was that a case of over-confidence or simply an inexperienced captain wanting to give the other members of his attack a chance?
The rest of the attack was disappointing. Conditions should have suited Anderson but he returned three for 104, Archer three for 106, Wood two for 110 and Bess two for 82. Clearly the plan to go with genuine pace didn’t work, but was this down to over-confidence or some resolute batting by the West Indies coupled with a rusty attack?
The final piece of the loss was the fielding. England missed their share of difficult chances, but so did the West Indies. This is not a case of over-confidence, but more a case of guys not being match ready. Both sides took the simple chances and there were lots of batsmen either bowled or lbw from both sides.
Would different selections including Broad, have made a difference? Given England lost, mostly because they underperformed with the bat and in the field, it’s hard to say he would have won the game for them even though he’s shown the ability to do so. He still would have needed good support from the other end to be effective and the figures from the other bowlers, bar Stokes, were pretty ordinary.
I think it’s more down to England having an inexperienced captain and not batting to the potential they showed in South Africa. They’ll be better for this game and there’s no doubt they’ll come roaring back at Old Trafford.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.
While a premature retirement isn’t the solution, he or England want, he may be forced into it if he can’t maintain a long run of matches.
England's chances of retaining the Twenty20 World Cup have been hit for six with the news Ben Stokes has opted out of selection for…
Bazball was developed as a strategy devised to use the resources efficiently rather than revolutionize the system.
England's tour of India has ended in abject fashion as the tourists were hammered by an innings and 64 runs inside three days, with…
India have bowled England out for a below-par 218 and cruised to 1-135 in reply to seize early control of the fifth and final…
India have accomplished a nervy run-chase to secure a five-wicket victory against England in the fourth cricket Test in Ranchi. Chasing a modest 192…
