Six and Out - Some Serious Cricket

How England lost the Ashes

by SixandOut on December 24th, 2006

So 3-nil down with two to play and the Ashes have already gone “home”. Whether England manage to win at all this series is now largely meaningless considering that the main event is already over. It sounds rather like an excited 17 year old out on his first date, There’s all the hype, the preparation, the angst, but after a little bit of foreplay it’s all over. If anything, Perth was nothing more than the cuddle after the show, as for me, the Ashes were lost in Adelaide. That “mad hour” as some people have called it, which lost a a test match that had for 2 days been destined for a draw, was the lowest point of the tour and signalled the end of England’s hopes. To take such a defeat was not uncommon for England, but to come back from it, was. Irrespective of all the propaganda and positive talk, there was less than a snowball’s chance of actually recovering. The difference between 1-0 down and 2-0 down with 3 to play numerically seems small, but in a 5-match Ashes series, the mental pressure it placed on the boys was too great. I’m not taking anything away from the Aussies, as they were, as usual, on top form, but in fairness, they didn’t have much opposition.

So what went wrong?

Adelaide was for me the moment that the Ashes were lost. But it was the lack of preparation and the poor selection choices that led to that moment. England will always look back and question how they went from a position in a game that they theoretically could have won, but above all should have at least drawn. To lose the match was the nail in the coffin, and questions need to be asked how they got themselves in that position. And for that, England’s batsmen must take some of the blame. Even with Paul Collingwood’s 200 in the first innings, none of England’s batsmen, in any of the 3 matches showed the type of commitment, or concentration, or focus or ability that is required in the highest form of the game. Strauss may have had some dodgy umpiring decisions, but never looked thoroughly settled. Alastair Cook showed some promise, but didn’t achieve. Likewise with Bell. Pietersen scored some good runs, but you never had the sense that in any of his innings he was there for the long haul. Flintoff was away with the fairies, and Geraint Jones did not live up to Fletcher’s expectations.

But the bowler’s should not get off scott free. There’s no question that they have been ineffective throughout. Harmison was wayward from Day 1, and Anderson didn’t perform. Hoggard had his moments, but moments don’t win matches. Flintoff was good at Brisbane, but was on the wane ever since. And Ashley Giles was an expensive mistake.

In fact, about the only positive from all this was that England’s fielding was at least around about up to the mark. It’s clear that the players need to take a certain amount of blame for losing the Ashes inside 15 out of a possible 25 days, as individual performances help the cause, but only playing as a team will win against Australia. That was the thing obviously lacking when compared with last year’s performance.

However, there are people guilty further up the chain. Sure to take the brunt of the criticism will be England coach Duncan Fletcher for his extremely questionable selection choices. And as recent press suggests, Flintoff ought to carry some of the burden too as the team selection rests between the two of them. There’s very little argument to suggest that Ashley Giles and Geraint Jones were the correct selections ahead of Monty Panesar and Chris Read. There’s little to suggest Chris Read would have made more of an impact than Jones, but when Jones was in the side for his superior batting but failed to make a single score, that selection was wrong. Chris Read is the better keeper and couldn’t have played any worse than Jones. As for Monty, well, I admit that I doubted how much difference he would have made had he been rightly included in the side since Brisbane. Judging by his performance Perth, I can only reconsider and think he would have made a huge difference. To take 8 wickets on your Australian debut in such circumstances was a phenomenal effort and he really proved that he has what it takes to perform at the highest level. It made a mockery of Fletcher’s decision to include him since the we all know that wickets win matches, invaluable compared with a few extra runs at the end an innings. The question remains though, how were Giles, and to a lesser extent Jones, ever in the side, when less than 3 months ago Panesar was described by Fletcher as the best finger spinner in the world and Chris Read was averaging 40 at test level?

There are serious issues in the selection process. For starters, there is a selection panel which is made up of the coach, captain and a handful of “senior players”. David Morgan of the ECB was very quick to mention that the selection panel did not have a final say in the selection of the side. Fair enough, except when you consider that Ashley Giles and Geraint Jones were two members sitting on the panel. It comes as a somewhat frightening coincidence that they ended up in the side to face Australia. Details are very sketchy surrounding the final selection, as all involved members are quick to cover everyone else’s backs, but, rumour has it that Fletcher backed the Panesar but was “overruled” by Flintoff and the advice of the selection panel. Regardless, it shows the instability of the current selection process.

Secondly, the selection of Flintoff as captain of the side has proven to be erroneous on several levels. Firstly, his captaincy has been at best weak where he has failed to show the type of initiative that previous captains, such as Vaughan or Hussein showed. He has looked lost on the pitch, with few answers to some tough questions. Further, it has clearly affected his batting, scoring one 50 out of 6 innings, and in each dismissal getting out in innocuous circumstances. It also questions whether he has the calibre in making tough decisions when it comes to selection and whether he’s guilty of picking his mates ahead of the best players. Persevering with Harmison after Brisbane was the correct decision, but not so with Giles and Jones.

Thirdly, the side was woefully underprepared. Not only did the uncertainty surrounding the injuries and team selection put undue confusion and pressure on all members (I know, you can’t plan for injury, but it would have been easy for the England management to simply rule out all the various people who were long term injury concerns), in addition to having Vaughan poking his nose in at every opportunity, would only have served to split unity amongst the side, but finally there was not enough cricket played, our bowlers were cold and out of form and following the woeful showing in the ICC Champions Trophy, all the members of the squad should have been caged up and forced to live, eat, drink, sleep, wear, watch and work cricket in the weeks leading up to the start of the tour. Instead, they were given a week off to be with their families. No such luck for the Australians, who only 6 weeks previous had been forced on a boot camp. It seemed stupid at the time, but look who is laughing now.

Frankly, the list of errors and cock-ups is long. The blame doesn’t fall solely on any one person, although certain individuals, such as Fletcher, should be forced to accept more blame than others. Long story short, England’s preparation for the Ashes left the team out of form and unprepared. Australia were a much better side, but England were nowhere near the type of cricket they are capable of playing.

So what next?

The call for Fletcher’s head on a plate have already been made by many different critics. I don’t think this is the right step, and even the ECB have said that his position won’t be reviewed until after the World Cup. It’s seems unlikely they’ll find any other option than to remove him, even if England were somehow to win the World Cup. In the short term, though, about the only certainty is that Geraint Jones will be axed in favour of Chris Read. England will of course be looking to avoid a complete whitewash despite the contest itself being dead rubber.

England have a habit of coming back in null series’ and I expect them to win at least one of the two remaining matches. Recent news that Warne and McGrath are both retiring following the Ashes may have knocked the focus of the Australian side, or, as I suspect, it will have the opposite effect - the boys will know its the last time they’re playing together and they’ll be determined to make the most of it.

Following the Ashes, its imperative that the selection process is addressed, because it’s not working right now. Flintoff’s tenure ought also to be reviewed, and in my opinion the captaincy offered to someone else. Strauss seems the obvious candidate, but the waters are of course muddied by the presence of Michael Vaughan.

This post has taken me over a week to write. It started as a vent, then a reflective thing and largely drifted in a statement of the obvious. The England set-up knows what the problems are, and instead of forever saying they’re working hard to address them, they, for once, need to just get on and do it.

Share This

Related Stories

• England plunge
• England spared complete humiliation
• Four for none
• England salvage some pride
• Literary genius

POSTED IN: Cricket