Rupert WatkinsThe State of Play
Riddle’s resident cricket nut runs over the deeper problems facing a struggling England side
Article by Rupert Watkins
With England’ s ignominious World Cup exit now out the way, along with many other cricket lovers, I have been trying to consider where English cricket goes next. The disastrous World Cup campaign in many ways just served to show that England are no further from recovering from the trauma of last year’s Ashes obliteration and its subsequent fall out than ever.
Given the whole reason for planning and then enduring back-to-back Ashes series was to allow English cricket to prepare fully for one day World Cup action, the resulting display was rightly eviscerated by angry observers and fans. However, simply looking in isolation at the farce of a World Cup period does not come close to explaining the deeper malaise running through the English game. One that was not done away with during England’s period of success under Flower, just merely hidden.
The 5-0 thrashing in Australia drove such a psychological stake through English cricket, I feel its reverberations will be felt for some time still to come. Not merely in the resulting shuffling of coaching personnel and the furore over KP’s treatment, that series laid bare the basic manner by which England approaches the game. The subsequent period has demonstrated once again the innate conservatism and rigidity that permeates all aspects of the game in this country. Whether KP is in the team or not or whether Flower, Giles or Moores is in charge is of secondary importance to this inflexible atmosphere.
The subsequent vicious arguments over Cook’s captaincy, the axing of KP, the revelations of his book, the World Cup catastrophe and the obsession now with how England approach the use of data are not the causes of the past 18 months of cricketing mediocrity but are symptoms. With the continuing argument over these symptoms, is it any wonder there has been no closure for the team and fans over the past year and there is unlikely to be any soon with the summer’s Ashes series ready to refresh scars not even semi-healed.
English cricket is obsessively conservative, hidebound and risk averse. This is not a recent phenomenon – it is simply the innate way we approach the game. We have never been comfortable with maverick players regardless of their match winning potential be that playing, tactical nous or leadership ability. Captaincy wise, Jardine was abandoned after Bodyline and Illingworth (a very astute and original captain if not later team manager) had run ins with the hierarchy in the 1970s. Even Len Hutton had to fight to take the right fast bowlers on Ashes-winning tours in the 1950s. Snow, Botham, Gower and Grieg to name just a few were all distrusted and kept at distance due to their innate and instinctive approach to the game. KP’s treatment is not the single cause of England’s woeful under-performance, it is simply the latest manifestation of long-rooted problems.
One can be whimsical and say much of our conservative approach could be summed up by that old-school view: “Perkins Minor… your Father’s not paying £10,000 a year for you to bat like that – keep your elbow at right angles..!!!” (regardless of whether said schoolboy has just launched three sixes in a row). However on a more serious note, I have read over the past couple of years in various cricketing magazines and papers a number of letters from disillusioned Fathers and young players as well as more perceptive articles analysing the manner by which talented young players are judged at academy entry level. This now revolves around interviews, beep tests and their ability to take direction. At no point were those young cricketers simply playing and genuine, knowledgeable observers looking for that small, almost indefinable “X” factor with a bat or ball in hand.
With this narrow-minded manner, is it any wonder that fans and writers alike look at the current test, one day teams and even young county talent and wonder whether they have the ability to think on their own; to work out for themselves why they are playing badly? I remember many years ago reading Viv Richards’ book when he described Andy Roberts and him coming over to Alf Glover’s cricketing academy in the early 1970s. Not only did Glover instantly want to remodel Roberts’ action, even though it was natural, efficient and allowed Roberts to bowl extremely fast, he was also determined to correct Richards’ technical impurity of whipping balls outside of off stump through mid-wicket.
What Richards made clear, though, was also what advice – even then – Roberts and he took on board and what they ignored. We can fast-forward to the current debate over the destruction of Finn’s bowling action by over-coaching and even the long running debate on Bell’s technical purity vs his ability to hit ugly runs that count, to see there is nothing new about the current debate. Do young English players have the personal willpower to ignore advice they instinctively know is not right for them and as importantly what reaction does the system have to this wilfulness?
Massive opprobrium has been heaped on Andy Flower since that Ashes defeat. Even when he was in charge there was constant criticism England were playing limited cricket but that is exactly why we enjoyed success. Flower was a pragmatist and realised pure talent was so distrusted at all levels of the game, that England would be better at maximising small returns to consistently deliver at 80 per cent of the ability in the squad than attempt to trust in pure series-turning brilliance operating at an inconsistent 95 per cent.
Most players hadn’t trusted their own true abilities since they’d disappeared into the county academy systems. Hence the much increased emphasis on the statistical analysis of matches, players and situations. Yet this data use was not a long-term cause of our current mediocrity – it was a reaction to enable a country with a very narrow approach to maximise its performance within a limited framework. Flower was lucky though to have as many mavericks as the English game could cope with reach their full potential – KP and Swann – as well as having KP’s fellow South African Trott (who learnt his cricket abroad) make a consistent impression.
The replacement of Flower with Moores has not changed this overarching limited approach to the very core of the game. What was forgotten – and this is the other huge area where England stumble – is that the game always moves on. Even over the short periods of time when England have success, they wish to preserve it in aspic and freeze time and the personnel playing. Fletcher made the mistake after the 2005 Ashes, Flower and the team made the mistake after the home Ashes series of 2013. No opportunity was taken to refresh and develop the England side – reliant on Anderson, Broad, Swann (then) and a batting line up that had shown its limitations as early as the Pakistan series in the UAE come 2011/12. Hence, last season’s huge and sudden influx of fresh blood, though to little avail in the one day arena as new talent plastered on a hidebound mind set was never going to make great progress. Yet even now there is talk of going back to the future with Trott returning to the team for the West Indies tour.
Twenty20 has revolutionised strokeplay - batsmen are bringing a limited overs mentality to the test arena. All countries have access to the statistical analysis to render one country’s belief it holds the key to success ever less relevant. The rest of the world seems to realise that the way to success is not in analysing ever deeper but in trusting and backing their most talented cricketers to play to their full natural ability. Hence the focus by everyone else on attacking batting, finding sheer pace bowlers without worrying about technical correctness (bar for injury prevention), probing spin bowlers and simple aggressive captaincy.
I doubt the latest talk about removing Moores again will change anything in our international performances – regardless of whether Jason Gillespie may be in the running as a replacement. One outsider/overseas coach cannot alter a system from top to bottom to relax the chokehold on the raw expression of talent. On a politic front, the ECB has spent millions on its elite coaching programs over the past decade - is it really going to accept the very nature of how these coaches are taught and think about the game merely entrenches traditional English obsessions? It would have to accept the top coaching positions out of necessity may have to go to overseas people free of our cripplingly complex views on the game.
I find it fascinating but also worrying that over the World Cup and in the India test series last summer it was the emerging young players leading the way. Not merely because of the stories coming out about how Moores cannot get the best out of his senior professionals but because these young players clearly reacted well to an over-proscribed system and I worry the Roots, Moeens, Buttlers and Ballances of the team are SO used to working in a rigid system that it is the only way they can think. I fear that if they had to fend for themselves they would struggle and do not share many writers’ and fans’ blasé view that in an uncluttered environment they would naturally and automatically thrive. They are the institutionalised generation of England players; biomechanical scientists, agents, coaches and sports psychologists have been floating round them since they were identified as talent at 16. The answers have too often been given to them on a plate.
Debates about the batting line up in test matches or one dayers, the successors to Anderson and Broad or our limited overs mentality are all subordinate to fundamental debate on how we encourage talent and allow it to shine. After that, in my eyes, the main question is how to ensure the team never risks (regardless of transient success) dropping into stasis. If KP scores a lot of first class runs at the start of this season, the sheer clamour to have him back in the team could see the first Ashes test with an England top five including Cook, Trott, Bell and KP. Where do those youngsters who came in and tried valiantly to move English cricket beyond this group go? Where’s the next “X” factor batsman to make the KP debate redundant? It’s not exactly great planning or trusting young talent is it…? 