England became the number one team and won the 2013 Ashes using a 6-1-4 combination, albeit with a very skilled keeper batsman in Prior, plus some handy lower order batsman in Broad and Swann. They were successful enough to stop (or at least reduce) the incessant whining in the English press for balance and longing for an all rounder. The English squad included Gary Ballance, a chunky Zimbabwean with a first class average over 50, and Ben Stokes, an all rounder who averaged 35 with the bat and 28 with the ball. They also had Jonny Bairstow, a second rate keeper and occasional specialist batsman with an excellent first class average of over 40.
For the first test England went with their established team and 6-1-4 combination. Australia picked something similar, although Watson is technically an all rounder.
The first test was a joyous surprise for the Aussies - Haddin rescued them with the bat in the first innings, and Johnson tore through them with the ball. Trott then quit the tour for depression, leaving open a spot in the batting line up for the second test.
Australia's batting order was wobbly, but England had become nervous by their counter-attacking at key points in the game. Also, Swann's bowling had seemed iffy and the third speedster had done badly and they wanted to play two spinners in Adelaide.
So instead of showing faith in their four specialists and picking Ballance, which they should have done, they went with Stokes - which would bolster the bowling. Apparently they were nervous about playing two spinners because you can't have only two seamers or something.
Anyway, Australia's batsmen pulverised the five-man attack for 570 and the English batsman folder. Another victory for Australia.
For the third test, England's selectors dumped Panesar and brought in Tim Bresnan, in part because of his batting. Stokes had a far better test of it in his second go, picking up three wickets and scoring a second innings century in an unsuccessful chase. England still lost but the all rounder lobby was cheered. "See! Ben Stokes is England's bright spot on the tour!"
Anyway, for the fourth test Swann retired and Prior was dropped but Stokes was kept on and England managed to lose a game despite being 51 runs ahead on the first innings, being wiped out in their second dig by Nathan Lyon. England also lost the fifth test, with Stokes getting a few runs plus a six wicket haul.
Stokes wound up England's third highest run scorer, and second highest wicket taker. for the series. He was, in all fairness, a bright spot for England on the tour. He was about the only player who came back with his reputation enhanced - Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Root, Bell, Prior, Bairstow, Broad, Anderson, Panesar, Swann and Finn all came back in the negative.
A tour where Trott had a nervous breakdown, Cook captained like a wet sock, Prior was dropped for poor form, Swann resigned from cricket altogether and Pietersen would wind up being kicked out of the English team indefinitely.
Was it really hard to look like a bright spot?
But you know something? I still think it was a mistake to pick him in the second test. The series was still alive then - and you don't simply replace a batsman who averages 46 at test level with a bits and pieces cricketer - which is what Stokes was. And is.
They should have risked Ballance.
As a result England's team was unbalanced, especially with Prior losing form. And as so often happens the selectors reconstructed the team around an all rounder - they got rid of the keeper, the heart and soul of the side, because of his batting; got in Bresnan, who wasn't match fit, for his batting. And they had to do this because they'd weakened the batting in the top six by using Stokes.
England are going through so much turmoil now that they'll probably stick with Stokes. And they'll lose or at least continue to lose unless they find a number seven or eight who is strong enough with the bat to compensate for him. And that will mean they might pick a seven or eight who isn't really good at what should be their day jobs (i.e. keeping and batting) but are okay with the bat. And that increases the risk England will lose.
And yet the all rounder lobby will still insist Stokes' presence "balances" the side.
An aside: Shane Watson, the allrounder whose presence supposedly so balances Australia, picked up four wickets and bowled a grand total of 47 overs during the Ashes. Is this not something part timers could have done?
No comments:
Post a Comment