Quite a lot has happened in the world of English cricket in the last couple of months, most of it, as usual, revolved around James Vince. A first international hundred, a match winning 60 for the Southern Brave, a second T20 century, and no Test call up.
Well that’s enough of my internal monologue, here’s a slightly less biased view on the goings on in the English cricket sphere.
India tour of England begins with Test series
England picked their squad for the visit of India with rather fewer players available than they would like. Ben Stokes has recently taken a break from cricket to help manage his mental health, which is hardly surprising given that he will have had to spend the last 16 months in various forms of isolation, staring at the inside of hotel walls, thanks to the ludicrous cricketing schedule. England have been vocal about prioritising their players mental health, giving Stokes as much time as he needs to away from the pressures and bubbles of the international game. Whilst the reception to this decision has been overwhelmingly positive, it does bear asking, if the powers that be care so much about players wellbeing, why has their schedule been so packed, even during the pandemic?
It rather goes without saying, Stokes’ absence poses an interesting, and concerning problem for the Test side. Stokes balances the side perfectly, he acts as a member of the leadership team, England’s best batter at home, and a valuable bowler.
So how will England balance their side in his absence?
Unfortunately, two of England’s three most obvious straight up all-round replacements are unavailable. Chris Woakes, arguably England’s best player in home conditions (Bowl ave 22, bat ave 35) is out injured for the first two matches of the series. One of these matches is at Lords, where he averages 61 with the bat and just 11 with the ball. Moeen Ali, who some people like to forget has 5 test match centuries and a better bowling strike-rate than any English spinner since world war two, has not been selected. This leaves the most obvious remaining choice to balance the middle order, Sam Curran. Curran has been much less effective recently in Test Match cricket than during his debut year where his slightly misleading ‘makes things happen’ label was truly in effect.
With Curran being brought into the side, this means that the only changes to the batting lineup would involve Jos Buttler moving up to his preferred position of number six, with (presumably) Dan Lawrence slotting in at number five. The call-up of Craig Overton appears rather perplexing to me given that he really would be considered a batter-who-bowls, who – to be entirely realistic – would be concerning if he were to bat at number seven in a test match. Sam Curran offers some serious talent with the bat (even with slightly disappointing returns so far) and England do not have to use him as a frontline bowler, but more of a second change seamer.
Moving up the order, to the top five, it is impossible not to go into this series against one of the best bowling attacks of the last decade, with a little trepidation. Rory Burns has been in fine form this summer, both against New Zealand and in the County Championship. Thankfully he hasn’t got any game time in The Hundred (how does he have a Hundred contract?) therefore his technique and mindset should not be too scrambled. Burns has a bizarre technique which can look either very organised when each moving part is in order, or completely useless when form eludes him. With England’s top-order troubles, Burns’ form is key to how this unit performs throughout the series.
Burns’ partner Dom Sibley is less secure. With a terrible run of scores in the sub-continent and plenty of criticism surrounding his scoring rate, whether fair or not, remains. Personally, I believe Sibley easily has the ability to blunt this Indian attack, the scoring rate is not the issue when it comes to Sibley, as plenty of great openers score slowly, but his array of stroke-making options are not plentiful.
Apart from a certain resurgent young man (who may come up later) I cannot think of a county opener who would not average less than Sibley, and last less deliveries at the crease. Sibley is far from the perfect option, but given how difficult it is to bat in England presently, someone who can merely stick around and give players like Joe Root and Lawrence more separation from the new ball could prove invaluable.
Giving Root a platform has become even more important recently given his struggles at home and against the good length ball. Recently Root averages just 32 in home tests since 2017 with a single century, not good enough for someone of his quality.
With Root’s struggles against length bowling, in England, it is therefore imperative that England pick a secure number three ahead of him. Zak Crawley is the man in possession, but it would be both daft and a bit cruel to continue playing him in the top three against this Indian attack. Crawley averages 10 since converting his maiden century into a mammoth 267. He also has very little to show for his domestic exploits recently, so whilst there clearly is plenty of talent there, it seems a little foolish to pick someone in horrendous form against Jasprit Bumrah, Ishant Sharma and Mohammad Shami. Therefore, I would pick Haseeb Hameed. He is back in form, he scored a hundred against a strong India attack in the warm up game, and looked comfortable doing it.
It may be a risk, given this is the first season of a true return to form, but some form, is surely preferable to none at all. Whilst it is less than ideal for Haseeb to hurl him back in, he clearly has the mettle to deal with the pressure, and is by far the better option to resist, and to score runs in this series.
It is unfortunate for players such as Chris Dent, that their worst county form in recent years, coincided with another English top three crisis.
The forgotten man of the last couple of months is James Bracey, he was thrown in to bat in an unfamiliar position for three innings against New Zealand, failed, and is now cast out. Surely he is worth a go at his preferred position of three, with Crawley in such poor form? No? Ok.
I look forward to Crawley averaging 60 and making this article look completely daft.
At this point my personal preference (which wasn’t taken into account by Chris Silverwood, apparently) is slightly pointless, but given the strength of the Indian attack, and the form of England’s ‘kids’, experience and form might have been a better bet.
Dawid Malan scores runs each time he bats at three for Yorkshire, and has shown he can play fast bowling (average of 47 against the short ball, and 33 against the full ball) but his weakness is for deliveries on or around a good length (courtesy of CricViz). This weakness however is shared by most of England’s batters, and Malan’s own domestic form and an experienced head make this a missed opportunity for England.
Now you’re going to have to bear with me here, but James Vince to come in at five makes perfect sense. I understand that if the England selectors had their way he would never play for England again, but he has just made his first England century, is in brilliant form in the shorter formats, and has more to show in the test arena. He was actually dropped very prematurely after making 76 against New Zealand in early 2018, and since they are willing to play Crawley, after no runs in nearly a year, or (the now injured) Ollie Pope who hasn’t scored runs for a similar amount of time, and who hasn’t even played for over a month, then why not?
Alas.
On the subject of Pope and (some way back, Sibley) a look at their stats suggests some overreaction both ways. This isn’t meant to be a Pope bashing session, as he is clearly a brilliant talent but, in 20 Tests, Dom Sibley (a boring failure) has 985 runs @ 30 with 2 centuries, and Pope (a genius and next big thing) has 882 runs @ 31 from 19 matches. This is slightly facetious given that I am well aware of the talent Pope has, and their roles are totally different, and Pope’s ceiling is much higher than Sibley’s, but the stats are worth considering.
As I write this, it looks like Jonny Bairstow is getting another chance in the middle order tomorrow. I really cannot be bothered to insult the reader’s intelligence here and say what everyone knows about his poor recent record, and (red ball) technique, but I will say that I do believe that he should be set free to murder The Hundred bowlers all over the shop and continue the legacy that he is building as potentially England’s best ever white ball men’s batter. This being said, I hope he bashes a revenge filled century, celebrates in an over the top manner, and then switches things up by actually backing this up in the rest of the series.
So what has the Hundred been like?
This is going to be a much shorter section, but I’ve enjoyed The Hundred. The men’s competition has been decent. The women’s competition has been outstanding, the crowds have been good, the engagement for younger supporters has seemed very encouraging. The quality of cricket was always going to be high, with the condensed talent pools in both the men’s and women’s competitions, but the concern was whether there was any need for the money and effort that has gone into a competition that seems to have so many negative effects on English cricket as a whole, if it fails.
So far, it has not failed. If the tournament makes a profit, encourages more diverse crowds, gets kids actually into cricket, then it can be considered a resounding success.
Recently I saw the following tweet:
I find this an extremely disappointing point of view from someone whose county cricket coverage I greatly respect. A tournament devised to encourage young people’s engagement with a sport which is comically inaccessible to a lot of people (of all ages) does not immediately discount anyone else. If the tournament had been banning people over 40 you’d think most news outlets would lead with that right? This is dangerously close to a ‘you can’t say anything these days’ sort of Tweet, and seems to put a negative spin on all of the positive parts of The Hundred, purely for the sake of it.
I understand there are concerns with this tournament, it isn’t as perfect as the ECB seem to think, but it is fun, and seems to be engaging plenty of people. Too many county fans have their blinkers firmly in place and are determined to find any problem with this tournament, even where they have to invent them.
Photo credit: David Molloy on flickr, creative commons 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode
Michael Vince on Sport 