Well, England finally beat Australia two days ago for the first time since the infamous fourth test at Trent Bridge in the 2005 Ashes. To say it's been a long time coming would be a massive understatement - but the way England simply brushed aside the Aussies in Sydney suggested they have moved on from the recent humiliating displays.
The question is though, is this England finally showing their Ashes winning form, or just a lucky game where Australia decided to take it easy? Indeed, it seemed the roles taken by England and Australia for the previous 3 months had been reversed - England were playing like, well, Australia. Ed Joyce was magnificent, scoring England's first century in a quite frankly, awfully long time - 15 matches to be precise.
Yes, England batted with spirit and bowled accurately. But let's not forget that it was most likely a poor Australian performance - not a fantastic English one - that gave the Poms victory. And because England have been so shocking up to this game - with the exception of the slender victory over New Zealand - they still need to beat the Kiwis on Tuesday to reach the best of three final. And even with rumours circulating that Michael Vaughan could return to lead the side out for the game, a win would be a big ask of England. So maybe optimism isn't quite the right word...
The win at least gives hope to those desperate English fans, like myself, who've been praying for a decent victory or two since the good ol' days way back in 2005. The form of Ian Bell, (the currently injured) Jimmy Anderson and of course Ed Joyce, among others, has been pleasing, but for the pieces to finally come together will have brought a smile to the face of all English fans alike.
Of course this blog is essentially dismissing the fact England beat New Zealand on the 15th of January at Hobart, but that victory was more down to the performances of individuals (such as Flintoff and Anderson) rather than a team effort. In Sydney everything just...clicked.
So back to the main point, and have England really turned a corner? Well obviously more time will be needed to answer that question definitively, but to achieve such a morale lifting win without Vaughan, Pietersen or Trescothick...it's no mean feat. Well done England is all I can say. Oh, and make sure you do that every game from now on lads. That'd be nice.
Saturday, 3 February 2007
Thursday, 25 January 2007
The Big Discussion: Who should be England's wicketkeeper?
It's the question that everyone has an opinion on, and nobody can seem to agree on. So who should be England's first choice wicketkeeper? Many have been used over the last few years, with the selectors seemingly unable to make a decisive choice as to who will be behind the stumps for the forseeable future.
Firstly, arguably Duncan Fletcher's personal choice, Geraint Jones has been England's main wicketkeeper for the last two years, with the exception of some blips in which he was temporarily replaced. Consistently inconsistent, the Papua New Guinea born player has never been the best available candidate with the gloves, yet his gritty efforts with the bat have meant he is the preferred player behind the stumps. The Kent wicketkeeper was part of the Ashes winning England team of 2005, and it was his acrobatic catch at Edgbaston which essentially turned the series around. However, he has always had his critics for doing the spectacular brilliantly well and the spectactularly easy very poorly. It seems out of the likely candidates, Jones has the best batting technique, he essentially is not the best with the gloves and there is only so much decent batting can help you with as a keeper. In all fairness, he hasn't made that many bigger scores than Read, Nixon and co. anyway.
Recently admitted back into the international test side, Chris Read is many people's choice for wicketkeeper. The exact opposite of Jones, and with possibly the safest gloves in the business, Read is only let down by his mediocre batting. The fact of the matter is, though, if Adam Gilchrist didn't exist, and Read was Australian, he would be Australia's first choice keeper. This is simply because Australia have enough runs in the top order to not need to rely on their wicketkeeper to score highly every game. Fortunately for Australia, Gilchrist is both a great wicketkeeper and a brilliant batsman, but England simply don't have good enough run scorers in the top and middle order, and so need a wicketkeeper to really perform with the bat. Despite Jones' moments of brilliance, Read should never have lost his place after the Carribean tour, when he was controversially dropped after keeping immaculately.
There are other candidates, most notably Paul Nixon, currently keeping for England in the Commonwealth Bank Series, and James Foster, once touted as Alec Steart's successor. Nixon's chance internationally seems to have come years too late - at the grand old age of 36 it's far too late to think of making him first choice keeper, the decision would be short term and England need long term stability to rely on at the moment. Foster hasn't had a chance since breaking his arm in the nets for Essex in 2002, except for the one cap he won as reserve keeper on the Ashes tour of 2002, and although it seems like he may never get the chance again, more consistent performances for Essex may leave the selectors a pleasing dilemma. Matt Prior is another player who has already tasted international cricket - as England's one day wicketkeeper occassionally, and being the youngest contender he is likely to don the gloves for country again in the future.
So the debate is open, should England go for the safest keeper in the business with Read, take a risk by keeping Jones or look to future possiblities in Matt Prior or the player everyone is backing to be England wicky in a few years, Steve Davies? At the tender age of 20, Davies has huge potential, but seems too young for the international stage for the moment. For the good of the team, it seems Chris Read is the best option at this moment in time.
Firstly, arguably Duncan Fletcher's personal choice, Geraint Jones has been England's main wicketkeeper for the last two years, with the exception of some blips in which he was temporarily replaced. Consistently inconsistent, the Papua New Guinea born player has never been the best available candidate with the gloves, yet his gritty efforts with the bat have meant he is the preferred player behind the stumps. The Kent wicketkeeper was part of the Ashes winning England team of 2005, and it was his acrobatic catch at Edgbaston which essentially turned the series around. However, he has always had his critics for doing the spectacular brilliantly well and the spectactularly easy very poorly. It seems out of the likely candidates, Jones has the best batting technique, he essentially is not the best with the gloves and there is only so much decent batting can help you with as a keeper. In all fairness, he hasn't made that many bigger scores than Read, Nixon and co. anyway.
Recently admitted back into the international test side, Chris Read is many people's choice for wicketkeeper. The exact opposite of Jones, and with possibly the safest gloves in the business, Read is only let down by his mediocre batting. The fact of the matter is, though, if Adam Gilchrist didn't exist, and Read was Australian, he would be Australia's first choice keeper. This is simply because Australia have enough runs in the top order to not need to rely on their wicketkeeper to score highly every game. Fortunately for Australia, Gilchrist is both a great wicketkeeper and a brilliant batsman, but England simply don't have good enough run scorers in the top and middle order, and so need a wicketkeeper to really perform with the bat. Despite Jones' moments of brilliance, Read should never have lost his place after the Carribean tour, when he was controversially dropped after keeping immaculately.
There are other candidates, most notably Paul Nixon, currently keeping for England in the Commonwealth Bank Series, and James Foster, once touted as Alec Steart's successor. Nixon's chance internationally seems to have come years too late - at the grand old age of 36 it's far too late to think of making him first choice keeper, the decision would be short term and England need long term stability to rely on at the moment. Foster hasn't had a chance since breaking his arm in the nets for Essex in 2002, except for the one cap he won as reserve keeper on the Ashes tour of 2002, and although it seems like he may never get the chance again, more consistent performances for Essex may leave the selectors a pleasing dilemma. Matt Prior is another player who has already tasted international cricket - as England's one day wicketkeeper occassionally, and being the youngest contender he is likely to don the gloves for country again in the future.
So the debate is open, should England go for the safest keeper in the business with Read, take a risk by keeping Jones or look to future possiblities in Matt Prior or the player everyone is backing to be England wicky in a few years, Steve Davies? At the tender age of 20, Davies has huge potential, but seems too young for the international stage for the moment. For the good of the team, it seems Chris Read is the best option at this moment in time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)