Now here are three reasons why...
1) We played Test Cricket as it's meant to be played.
Discipline is the name of the game and England have been the epitome of the word. Bar the minor blip in Adelaide, the top order have been impeccable in their judgement and the contributions of Cook and Trott were vital in setting the platform for the victories thus far. The phrase 'if you leave the ball well, you'll bat well' has never rung more true and the likes of Watson, Hughes, Clarke should take note. Time after time, loose drives and an inability to leave the ball properly has seen Australian innings crumble and England gain the upper hand.
But it hasn't just been the batting.
Throughout the series the bowling attack have hit their lengths consistently, stuck to the meticulous plans set out by Strauss and Flower and remained un-moved from the sort of nagging lines that an opposition wakes up in cold sweats to. In stark contrast Australia have sprayed it; there is no other way around it. Johnson, despite bowling a magnificent spell in the Aussies convincing win, has been all over the place and looks like a cricketer on the verge of a breakdown. Hilfenhaus has been uncharacteristically loose and, through no fault of his own, Pointing has been unable to build any sort of pressure on any of the England batsman.
2) Catches win matches.
Without taking them you aren't taking 20 wickets. England were brilliant in the field and Australia were far from it. It was mentioned before the series started that Strauss and his slip cordon were far superior to their opposition and they didn't disappoint. The captain, Swann and Collingwood were excellent off both seam and spin, whilst Pietersen had an impressive series at Gully. Obviously Collingwoods catch off Pointing is the pick of the bunch and will live long in the memory but it was the way in which the cordon snaffled the regulation chances that was important.
3) Englands replacements have been outstanding
Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan: take a bow. Both made Ashes debuts and both were exceptional. Tremlett, picked after an outstanding year on the Domestic scene, was faultless in the loss in Adelaide (picking up 8 wickets) and continued his form in Melbourne. He caused all manner of problems for the Aussies and out-bowled the man he replaced, Stuart Broad. Bresnan was equally brilliant in Melbourne and answered all his critics (including myself). Evidently more than just a 'county trundler', the Yorkshireman bowled beautifully in both Australias' innings and got just reward for his un-erring accuracy. What was so pleasing was that England weren't affected by the loss of Broad or the fatigue of Finn. We were actually strengthened by the changes and the use of fresh seamers in Australian conditions was a blessing.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Friday, 24 December 2010
Blocking the Path of the Future
Imports. Contentious aren't they?
In this country Football and Rugby League are two sports that attract and play host to foreign sportsmen from around the globe. Critics of the Premier League and Super League have identified the need to reduce the number of overseas imports in the game. But, are they beneficial? Do they raise the standards and improve our youngsters? Or, are our imports blocking the way of domestic talent?
Take the English Premier League. Arguably the greatest Football league in the World, the top flight in England is home to the most talented footballers from every continent and provides fans with a spectacle unrivalled. Players like Tevez, Drogba and Fabregas grace our league with skills and performances that dazzle our fans and media. But, it isn't that brand of footballer that's the problem. Those World Class performers enhance our game, they raise the standard of the football and our young players learn from them, no end. Our problem is the quantity of the foreign players in the league. Is Lucas that much better than Jay Spearing? Will Kieran Gibbs's career stall because of Gael Clichy? Does Javier Hernandez have that much more quality than Danny Welbeck? Just a few examples at the bigger clubs in the Premier League, but the same theme runs across the board.
The same problems exist in British Rugby League, but they are even more pronounced. A typical import to the English game is Australian, in his late 20's/early 30's, over-the-hill and finished in the representative game. There are exceptions, there are some brilliant exceptions, but they are few and far between. It couldn't be more frustrating to watch average imports hold on to places and positions that should be filled by hungry British Rugby players. The national teams problem positions are in the outside backs and yet you'd be hard pressed to name 25 players starting in those positions in the Super League that qualify to play for England. Now there are some other serious problems in the top tier of the British game, namely the standard of coaching, but the number of foreign players is undoubtedly hindering the chances of youth coming to the fore. England Academy recently beat their Australian counterparts in a two match Test series and certain players clearly emerged with the necessary quality to hold their own on at the highest level. But will they get their chance? Will it be too late when they finally are blooded?
How can young players fulfill their potential and develop themselves if they aren't exposed to the highest level? There is only so much that somebody can learn by being the understudy to a more experienced professional. Clearly the classier individuals are worth their place and definitely add to not only the standard but also the development of youngsters. Nobody minds the Didier Drogba's and Brett Finch's of this world. This isn't a complaint about a Cesc Fabregas or Michael Monaghan. They aren't the issue.
But Lucas Leiva? Javier Hernandez? Blake Green? Brett Delaney? These guys aren't world beaters, they aren't going to significantly add to the game. They are hard working professionals who have been offered the opportunity to work in England and earn a good living. They aren't to blame. But they are blocking the path of our future internationals and they are reducing the pool of athletes who could be selected for the national team.
If we want international success then the domestic scene of both these sports needs to be restructured. Domestic cricket has limits on the number of overseas players involved in the game and look at the success of the England cricket team. Why can't Football and Rugby League follow suit? Why can't Arsenal or Chelsea stick to four or five quality overseas players and then make the rest of the side up with homegrown footballers?
The standards might drop for a short period. That is pretty undeniable as clubs tried to adjust to the changes and young players were thrust into the highest level. But the changes would force clubs to invest in youth whilst improving and innovating their coaching standards. England would benefit in the long run, our national sides would be more competitive and fans would get to watch home grown players fight for their side. It makes sense doesn't it?
In this country Football and Rugby League are two sports that attract and play host to foreign sportsmen from around the globe. Critics of the Premier League and Super League have identified the need to reduce the number of overseas imports in the game. But, are they beneficial? Do they raise the standards and improve our youngsters? Or, are our imports blocking the way of domestic talent?
Take the English Premier League. Arguably the greatest Football league in the World, the top flight in England is home to the most talented footballers from every continent and provides fans with a spectacle unrivalled. Players like Tevez, Drogba and Fabregas grace our league with skills and performances that dazzle our fans and media. But, it isn't that brand of footballer that's the problem. Those World Class performers enhance our game, they raise the standard of the football and our young players learn from them, no end. Our problem is the quantity of the foreign players in the league. Is Lucas that much better than Jay Spearing? Will Kieran Gibbs's career stall because of Gael Clichy? Does Javier Hernandez have that much more quality than Danny Welbeck? Just a few examples at the bigger clubs in the Premier League, but the same theme runs across the board.
The same problems exist in British Rugby League, but they are even more pronounced. A typical import to the English game is Australian, in his late 20's/early 30's, over-the-hill and finished in the representative game. There are exceptions, there are some brilliant exceptions, but they are few and far between. It couldn't be more frustrating to watch average imports hold on to places and positions that should be filled by hungry British Rugby players. The national teams problem positions are in the outside backs and yet you'd be hard pressed to name 25 players starting in those positions in the Super League that qualify to play for England. Now there are some other serious problems in the top tier of the British game, namely the standard of coaching, but the number of foreign players is undoubtedly hindering the chances of youth coming to the fore. England Academy recently beat their Australian counterparts in a two match Test series and certain players clearly emerged with the necessary quality to hold their own on at the highest level. But will they get their chance? Will it be too late when they finally are blooded?
How can young players fulfill their potential and develop themselves if they aren't exposed to the highest level? There is only so much that somebody can learn by being the understudy to a more experienced professional. Clearly the classier individuals are worth their place and definitely add to not only the standard but also the development of youngsters. Nobody minds the Didier Drogba's and Brett Finch's of this world. This isn't a complaint about a Cesc Fabregas or Michael Monaghan. They aren't the issue.
But Lucas Leiva? Javier Hernandez? Blake Green? Brett Delaney? These guys aren't world beaters, they aren't going to significantly add to the game. They are hard working professionals who have been offered the opportunity to work in England and earn a good living. They aren't to blame. But they are blocking the path of our future internationals and they are reducing the pool of athletes who could be selected for the national team.
If we want international success then the domestic scene of both these sports needs to be restructured. Domestic cricket has limits on the number of overseas players involved in the game and look at the success of the England cricket team. Why can't Football and Rugby League follow suit? Why can't Arsenal or Chelsea stick to four or five quality overseas players and then make the rest of the side up with homegrown footballers?
The standards might drop for a short period. That is pretty undeniable as clubs tried to adjust to the changes and young players were thrust into the highest level. But the changes would force clubs to invest in youth whilst improving and innovating their coaching standards. England would benefit in the long run, our national sides would be more competitive and fans would get to watch home grown players fight for their side. It makes sense doesn't it?
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Defending the defendable
The growing clamour to drop Paul Collingwood is worrying. Once again the Durham all-rounder finds himself under increasing pressure to keep his place in the England team; a position not uncommon for 'Colly'.
Averaging only 15 with the bat and sparingly used with the ball, Collingwood's role in this Ashes series has been limited to catching bullets in the slips and acting as an experienced influence to some of the younger tour party members.
Journalists circle round in a vulture-like fashion bombarding England teammates with questions designed for that one slip; that one indication that support in the camp for Paul has switched, that he doesn't bring enough to the 'party' anymore or that he isn't dealing well with the Ashes pressure.
But his teammates stand firm, and with good reason. To drop Collingwood would be grossly unjust and more damaging than helpful to the England team. Here is a man with a proven track record, a cricketer who has fought 'tooth and nail' to play on the grandest stage of them all and achieve. Forget the recent run of form, forget how he resembles a crab when he bats; just remember this...
Paul Collingwood is proven.
Paul Collingwood is a winner.
Paul Collingwood has scored a Test Match double hundred in Australia against a far superior team than the current crop.
That is enough for me.
Averaging only 15 with the bat and sparingly used with the ball, Collingwood's role in this Ashes series has been limited to catching bullets in the slips and acting as an experienced influence to some of the younger tour party members.
Journalists circle round in a vulture-like fashion bombarding England teammates with questions designed for that one slip; that one indication that support in the camp for Paul has switched, that he doesn't bring enough to the 'party' anymore or that he isn't dealing well with the Ashes pressure.
But his teammates stand firm, and with good reason. To drop Collingwood would be grossly unjust and more damaging than helpful to the England team. Here is a man with a proven track record, a cricketer who has fought 'tooth and nail' to play on the grandest stage of them all and achieve. Forget the recent run of form, forget how he resembles a crab when he bats; just remember this...
Paul Collingwood is proven.
Paul Collingwood is a winner.
Paul Collingwood has 10 Test Match hundreds to his name
Paul Collingwood averages over 40 in Test Match Cricket
Paul Collingwood has scored a Test Match double hundred in Australia against a far superior team than the current crop.
That is enough for me.
Add in that he's the world's best fielder and very handy medium pace bowler (useful in the Australian heat). Need I say more.
If he's given the chance to carry on in Melbourne and then Sydney, 'Colly' will let no-one down.
Monday, 20 December 2010
Streets Ahead...
Cast your minds back to this recent series of Rugby Union Autumn Internationals....
Yes I know this post might seem a little irrelevant and a bit late but nonetheless the matches between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres certainly provided us with food for thought.
Only England and Scotland managed to post victories over any of the Tri-Nations and, although Wales and Ireland pushed them close, at times it looked like neither South Africa, Australia or New Zealand got out of second gear.
What really struck me though was the All Blacks.
I know anybody sitting reading this will tell me that they are 'chokers' and that they historically 'peak too early' but I'm going to be bold with my prediction at this early stage. They WILL win the World Cup at home.
Not only are they streets ahead of the rest in terms of player resources, their tactics and skills in the recent International matches were absolutely outstanding. Okay, so it helps if Dan Carter is your fly-half and Richie McCaw is your Captain but if we stop and look at a few other things it becomes clearer to why they were so dominant.
At the breakdown they were brutal and at set-piece they surprised and outscrummaged most but i want to specifically pick up on a couple of points.
1) The Offload
The offload isn't just all about keeping the 'ball alive', that is far too simplistic a description. Where the All Blacks were able to rip teams apart was in their timing of the offload from the ball carrier and the angles that the reciever picked. What troubles an opposition defence is marking other players when their focus is on the man in possession. Take New Zealand's first try against England. When the ball is spun wide off the top of the lineout each England defender can easily pick his man up and Tindall is drawn towards Sonny Bill-Williams. It's then when Sonny is able to get his arms free that the problems are posed. Both the full-back and the winger can recieve the pass from the outside center and have the opportunity to pick an angle from a deeper position. Another defender is drawn to the ball carrier to stop either the offload or a continued carry and that frees up space for the three-quarters.
Now this isn't all about Sonny Bill. He undoubtedly has brought those skills from his Rugby League background, but this was across the board, this was every player on the pitch willing to not only chance the offload but time it.
2) Defence
I'm not just talking about your typical All Black impenetrable 'wall', brutal and all-consuming. I'm talking about their focus on the ball. The growing trend in Rugby Union is to carry the ball in one hand and because players are not protected from having possession stripped they risk having it done to them on a regular basis. Time and time again the howls of British supporters were heard over their teams inability to keep hold of the ball against New Zealand. It's not a coincidence though. After watching each side that the All Blacks faced repeatedly turn over the ball, I started to notice the emphasis that they placed on getting two men in the tackle; one high and one low. Graham Henry and his defence coach have focused on stripping the ball from the opposition and dangerously counter-attacking from the resulting turnover.
Now, you might argue that these are two simple and minor reasons behind their success. That really any team containing Carter, McCaw, Reid, Nonu, Muliaina etc... should be winning every match that they play. But, I'd argue differently. It's this sort of attention to detail, it's this sort of Rugby evolution that differentiates the best from the very good and it's this sort of innovative thinking that will see Richie lift that Web-Ellis trophy in 2011.
Yes I know this post might seem a little irrelevant and a bit late but nonetheless the matches between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres certainly provided us with food for thought.
Only England and Scotland managed to post victories over any of the Tri-Nations and, although Wales and Ireland pushed them close, at times it looked like neither South Africa, Australia or New Zealand got out of second gear.
What really struck me though was the All Blacks.
I know anybody sitting reading this will tell me that they are 'chokers' and that they historically 'peak too early' but I'm going to be bold with my prediction at this early stage. They WILL win the World Cup at home.
Not only are they streets ahead of the rest in terms of player resources, their tactics and skills in the recent International matches were absolutely outstanding. Okay, so it helps if Dan Carter is your fly-half and Richie McCaw is your Captain but if we stop and look at a few other things it becomes clearer to why they were so dominant.
At the breakdown they were brutal and at set-piece they surprised and outscrummaged most but i want to specifically pick up on a couple of points.
1) The Offload
The offload isn't just all about keeping the 'ball alive', that is far too simplistic a description. Where the All Blacks were able to rip teams apart was in their timing of the offload from the ball carrier and the angles that the reciever picked. What troubles an opposition defence is marking other players when their focus is on the man in possession. Take New Zealand's first try against England. When the ball is spun wide off the top of the lineout each England defender can easily pick his man up and Tindall is drawn towards Sonny Bill-Williams. It's then when Sonny is able to get his arms free that the problems are posed. Both the full-back and the winger can recieve the pass from the outside center and have the opportunity to pick an angle from a deeper position. Another defender is drawn to the ball carrier to stop either the offload or a continued carry and that frees up space for the three-quarters.
Now this isn't all about Sonny Bill. He undoubtedly has brought those skills from his Rugby League background, but this was across the board, this was every player on the pitch willing to not only chance the offload but time it.
2) Defence
I'm not just talking about your typical All Black impenetrable 'wall', brutal and all-consuming. I'm talking about their focus on the ball. The growing trend in Rugby Union is to carry the ball in one hand and because players are not protected from having possession stripped they risk having it done to them on a regular basis. Time and time again the howls of British supporters were heard over their teams inability to keep hold of the ball against New Zealand. It's not a coincidence though. After watching each side that the All Blacks faced repeatedly turn over the ball, I started to notice the emphasis that they placed on getting two men in the tackle; one high and one low. Graham Henry and his defence coach have focused on stripping the ball from the opposition and dangerously counter-attacking from the resulting turnover.
Now, you might argue that these are two simple and minor reasons behind their success. That really any team containing Carter, McCaw, Reid, Nonu, Muliaina etc... should be winning every match that they play. But, I'd argue differently. It's this sort of attention to detail, it's this sort of Rugby evolution that differentiates the best from the very good and it's this sort of innovative thinking that will see Richie lift that Web-Ellis trophy in 2011.
Saturday, 18 December 2010
Strength in the Face of Adversity
The respective performances of Mitchell Johnson and Chris Tremlett in the Perth Test Match serve as a reminder of the difficulties that professional sportspeople go through to achieve success. The two pace - bowlers have different stories, filled with trials and tribulations, but have one important thing in common; they've both bounced back and they've both done it in style.
The way in which Mitchell Johnson has performed in the Third Test Match of this Ashes series is nothing short of remarkable.
Having been dropped after giving an astonishingly erratic account of himself in Brisbane, journalists, fans, ex - players and pundits all lined up to berate Johnson and it looked as if the Australian public had fallen out of love with the tattooed Queenslander.
His exclusion from the Second Test Match was contentious and he reportedly was furious at his omission from the side. Cricket Australia then refused him the opportunity of playing state cricket during the Adelaide match (instead he carried the drinks and completed twelfth man duties) leaving Johnson dejected and kicking his heels.
So how in such a short space of time has Johnson turned it all around?
A self belief bordering on delusion, a confidence which most would describe as arrogance and an exuberance surpassed by none has seen Mitchell drag himself off the canvas, dust himself down and put in a performance similar to that when he was the World's best in 2009.
Whilst Johnson's recovery has come in a relatively short period of time, Chris Tremlett's return to Test Cricket has been a much longer and drawn out affair.
Tremlett first played International Cricket back in 2005, and made his Test Match debut in 2007 against India. He was a cricketer with considerable ability, blessed with height and a frame that most pace bowlers would die for.
What Tremlett lacked was fitness.
Plagued by injury after making his debut for England, the former-Hampshire paceman struggled to gain any sort of consistency in his cricket and his International career was as good as written off until he joined Surrey for the 2010 season.
The move sparked a run of form that saw Tremlett catapulted back into the media eye, complete an injury free season and gain selection for the Ashes tour. All of a sudden the 6"8 giant was being touted as England's number one back up bowler and when Stuart Broad was ruled out for the rest of the tour, Tremlett was first in line to replace him.
His performance in Perth, not only reminded us of his considerable talent, but was the perfect example of somebody grabbing their opportunity and making it count.
These examples illustrate the determination that we find in sportsmen desperate to succeed. They put to shame the people who let their talent go to waste, who under-achieve, who don't have the fight or the desire. Both Tremlett and Johnson are talented beyond belief (nobody questions that) but their stories reflect the kind of people that they have become.
The way in which Mitchell Johnson has performed in the Third Test Match of this Ashes series is nothing short of remarkable.
Having been dropped after giving an astonishingly erratic account of himself in Brisbane, journalists, fans, ex - players and pundits all lined up to berate Johnson and it looked as if the Australian public had fallen out of love with the tattooed Queenslander.
His exclusion from the Second Test Match was contentious and he reportedly was furious at his omission from the side. Cricket Australia then refused him the opportunity of playing state cricket during the Adelaide match (instead he carried the drinks and completed twelfth man duties) leaving Johnson dejected and kicking his heels.
So how in such a short space of time has Johnson turned it all around?
A self belief bordering on delusion, a confidence which most would describe as arrogance and an exuberance surpassed by none has seen Mitchell drag himself off the canvas, dust himself down and put in a performance similar to that when he was the World's best in 2009.
Whilst Johnson's recovery has come in a relatively short period of time, Chris Tremlett's return to Test Cricket has been a much longer and drawn out affair.
Tremlett first played International Cricket back in 2005, and made his Test Match debut in 2007 against India. He was a cricketer with considerable ability, blessed with height and a frame that most pace bowlers would die for.
What Tremlett lacked was fitness.
Plagued by injury after making his debut for England, the former-Hampshire paceman struggled to gain any sort of consistency in his cricket and his International career was as good as written off until he joined Surrey for the 2010 season.
The move sparked a run of form that saw Tremlett catapulted back into the media eye, complete an injury free season and gain selection for the Ashes tour. All of a sudden the 6"8 giant was being touted as England's number one back up bowler and when Stuart Broad was ruled out for the rest of the tour, Tremlett was first in line to replace him.
His performance in Perth, not only reminded us of his considerable talent, but was the perfect example of somebody grabbing their opportunity and making it count.
These examples illustrate the determination that we find in sportsmen desperate to succeed. They put to shame the people who let their talent go to waste, who under-achieve, who don't have the fight or the desire. Both Tremlett and Johnson are talented beyond belief (nobody questions that) but their stories reflect the kind of people that they have become.
Live and Learn
I've learnt a few things over the last few days.
1) Don't ever write off Australian cricket teams
3) Don't tempt fate by claiming England are going to regain the Ashes after one victory
4) Don't count on England to adapt to Australian conditions
5) Don't be so naive in future
1) Don't ever write off Australian cricket teams
2) Don't forget that a wounded animal is the most dangerous
3) Don't tempt fate by claiming England are going to regain the Ashes after one victory
4) Don't count on England to adapt to Australian conditions
5) Don't be so naive in future
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Thoughts of a typical, and cynical, Englishman
This morning, England wrapped up their inevitable innings defeat of Australia in the second Ashes Test Match at the Adelaide Oval.
The margin of defeat is incredible, the Aussie's have been well and truly smashed and for the first time in 20 years England are hot favourites to retain the Ashes down under.
England were outstanding in all three departments on every day of the Test Match and the gap between the two sides is fast becoming embarrasing for the Australian nation.
Which leaves me to wonder; Is this victory and the remaining series marred by the quality of the Australian team?
Maybe it's a little harsh on England's effort? Maybe we should be revelling in the dominant performances of Andrew Strauss and his men? Maybe I'm being premature?
BUT, I can't help the nagging feeling in the back of my mind, which keeps saying to me 'there is no McGrath, there is no Warne or Langer or Hayden or Gilchrist or...'.
I know Cricket moves on, I know England have improved and I know different sides have dominant era's and then generally fall from grace. It just seems that Australia's has been at an alarming rate.
Warne and McGrath were irreplaceable, Gilchrist was a one in a million cricketer and Langer and Hayden formed one of the most formidable opening partnerships in contemporary Cricket. I'm not denying replacing them was a near impossible task, I'm just looking in an un-biased manner at the players that have come in to fill their shoes and I'm worried that their lack of quality degrades England's victories.
Is Graeme Swann in the same league as Warne? Is Anderson close to McGrath? Prior up against Gilchrist?
Just a few questions I'm asking myself.
The margin of defeat is incredible, the Aussie's have been well and truly smashed and for the first time in 20 years England are hot favourites to retain the Ashes down under.
England were outstanding in all three departments on every day of the Test Match and the gap between the two sides is fast becoming embarrasing for the Australian nation.
Which leaves me to wonder; Is this victory and the remaining series marred by the quality of the Australian team?
Maybe it's a little harsh on England's effort? Maybe we should be revelling in the dominant performances of Andrew Strauss and his men? Maybe I'm being premature?
BUT, I can't help the nagging feeling in the back of my mind, which keeps saying to me 'there is no McGrath, there is no Warne or Langer or Hayden or Gilchrist or...'.
I know Cricket moves on, I know England have improved and I know different sides have dominant era's and then generally fall from grace. It just seems that Australia's has been at an alarming rate.
Warne and McGrath were irreplaceable, Gilchrist was a one in a million cricketer and Langer and Hayden formed one of the most formidable opening partnerships in contemporary Cricket. I'm not denying replacing them was a near impossible task, I'm just looking in an un-biased manner at the players that have come in to fill their shoes and I'm worried that their lack of quality degrades England's victories.
Is Graeme Swann in the same league as Warne? Is Anderson close to McGrath? Prior up against Gilchrist?
Just a few questions I'm asking myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)