Caribbean Lessons

Wednesday, 11th March 2009

In the grander scheme of matters, a West Indian series victory which left England thinking they should really have won the series 2-1 was not a bad result. England can argue that they were the better side for most the series and only just failed to turn their superiority into victory. For the West Indies, the importance of a first series victory in five years cannot be over-stated. Caribbean cricket desperately needed this and so what if they remain just half a team and should, by rights, have been beaten by a pretty ordinary England team.

In other circumstances the West Indians' decision not to even try and win the final test would have been reprehensible; as it was it became understandable if still, to my mind, regrettable and slightly contrary to the spirit of the game. That is, I like bowlers to try and take wickets, not keep the opposition batting for as long as possible.

Looking at matters from an English perspective - and ignoring the importance of a west Indian revival - and we see a gloomy, depressing picture. England failed to dismiss the West Indies twice and even arguments that Anderson and Sidebottom are better suited to English than Caribbean conditions cut little mustard. Add in Flintoff's injury and Harmison's haplessness and it's not a pretty sight. Especially when you consider that England were beaten by a side with only three batsmen (plus the dogged Nash) and two and a bit bowlers (Edwards, Taylor and Benn). Australia will bring a full team to England this summer.

If - and it's a hefty if - England can call upon a fit Andrew Flintoff who will bat at six, then who will play at 3? (My guess is that the
selectors greatest wish is for Michael Vaughan to be fit and scoring heavily for Yorkshire). Assuming a five man attack will include Flintoff, Broad, Anderson and either Panesar or Swann then who is the final seamer? Again, I suspect the selectors must be looking back to 2005 and hoping that Simon Jones is, for once, fit and, less unusually, bowling well.

But, to put it another way, how many Englishmen would get into a combined Ashes XI assuming everyone is fit and in form? Not many. And that's rather troubling.

Equally disconcerting is the thought that if Australia had been presented with chances to win the game of the sort that England
enjoyed at Antigua and Trinidad one rather thinks they would have won at least one, and probably both, matches. Boldness is generally rewarded; timidity is not. That's another lesson worth learning.

Filed under: Cricket (157 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Alf Tupper

March 11th, 2009 11:39pm Report this comment

Bloody ell. You're really going to try stick in with this cricket thing then?

Kevyn Bodman

March 12th, 2009 4:41am Report this comment

England were not the better side; if they had been they would have won.
In a Test series that's what happens.
We don't award runs or wickets for artistic impression,there is a clear scoring system that reveals the better side.That side are the winners.

As for England's no 3; it's not Bell and now we know it's not Shah. Unfortunately, on benign pitches when everybody else was scoring well Shah couldn't.
So is it Vaughan?
I think there is a chance that his best years are behind him.
However we will know who should have that slot when we see who is scoring heavily in the early English season.

Flintoff is always going to be injury-prone.
He is a big man who lands heavily. His body will break down, inevitably and frequently.

Which England players would make a combined Ashes team?
Only Pietersen would have a chance.
But in a team with other strong batsmen would you include Pietersen?
Did you see his body language when Harmison came out with that message, which we assume was about the timing of the declaration.
Pietersen turned away while Harmison was still talking and the gap between them had not been closed.
Did you Mr. Massie, or any of your other readers interpret that as meaning 'I don't want to hear this, I want my century'?

So what about the captaincy?
Why did Strauss delay his final day declaration?
In a situation like that it is nearly always preferable to declare half an hour before the interval and make the opposition's openers face an awkward twenty minutes.
The batsmen have to start against fresh and fired up bowlers, twice.

What about the wicketkeeper?
In Prior's absence Ambrose did well.Then in the final Test Prior batted well but conceded loads of extras.
This has to be considered. By all means retain Prior, but not without proper consideration of the options.

Do keep going with the cricket posts Mr. Massie.
But if you want to also post about middle-distance running and fish and chips, I enjoy both of those too.

Post comment