England v India: ODIs - Defeat Does Not Remove The Positives

 

England v India: ODIs

Defeat Does Not Remove The Positives

January 18^th 2017

To look at the grumbling from fans you would think that the England set-up is in total meltdown. In the 1^st ODI India were set 351 to win and made them with some comfort: the first time that England has made over 331 and lost.

You can paraphrase it by saying in a Bob Dylan-esque way “the times they is a-changing”. Although it was a good effort to make 350 after a mid-innings squelch and the pundits claimed that the score was a bit above par, it denies the change in the nature of the game in recent years. 350, on a small ground with a flat pitch was no better than a par score these days. There was wholesale condemnation of England’s bowling effort, but I don't think that India would have defended a total either had they batted first.

You need to do no more than to look at the recent Tests to see just how much the game is changing: Bangladesh scored 595-8d in their first innings and LOST; Australia set Pakistan 486 to win a Test and just scraped home when it appeared that Pakistan were almost there. Fifteen times a side has scored 500+ in the first innings of a Test and lost and eight of those occasions have been in the last 14 years. Sooner or later that record chase in the fourth innings of a Test is going to be shattered and a side will be set 450, or even 500 and will win.

Getting back to the ODIs, I suspect that we will see both sides struggling to defend 330+ during the series. Things are just so ridiculously weighted now against the bowlers. It may well be that unless India decide to resort to a vicious turner that we will see that a side setting 380 will have real problems to defend that total. The old adage of winning 50% of ODIs with a score of 260 is now so hopelessly outdated as to be a museum piece: sides may still win matches setting 240 or 250, but it will be thanks to a difficult pitch.

Crowds now expect run-fests against totally neutered bowlers. 250 in a T20 has been made no less than six times: it is only a matter of time before we see a side make 300 in a T20. 400 in a 50-over match has happened so many times that it is now barely newsworthy and 500 is going to happen soon, after all, the record is Surrey’s 496-4 in 2007. If there are not sixes galore, the fans think that they have been cheated.

Sadly, these people do not know what they are missing. Some of the greatest, tensest  ODIs of all-time have been low-scoring affairs on very difficult pitches. One game that I particularly recall was the last group match in the 1979 World Cup (yes, cricket was played that long ago). England scored 165-9 from 60 overs, powered by Graeme Gooch’s 33 from 90 balls (yes, you read that right), eventually recovering from 118-8. In reply, Pakistan sank to 34-6 before Asif Iqbal made the only 50 of the match and the Pakistan tail all chipped-in. At 145-8 it seemed that Pakistan would snatch an amazing comeback win, with England’s seamers bowled out and Phil Edmonds surplus to requirements for most of the game. A desperate Mike Brearley turned to his secret weapon – Geoff Boycott (who had been warned that he might need to bowl a few overs in the tournament) – who then proceeded to come on and mop-up the tail. 5-0-14-2 and one of the greatest, tensest ODIs in history was done. There is nothing better than a low-scoring game on a difficult pitch where every single at the death is a story and batsmen have to out-think bowlers rather than simply bully them. We are in danger of losing the gem that is a low-scoring thriller. Now, 165-9 would be considered no more than a decent score in a T20, let alone a 60-over match.

Failing to defend 350 in an ODI is not so unexpected these days. It does not indicate an ODI side in crisis, as some catastrophists would like to make out. England lost because they did not make enough runs after a mid-innings wobble and, unlike India, they did not have a set batsman in at the death. Eoin Morgan felt that his side should have  made 380 and he was right.

Fans though will see those four consecutive defeats in the Tests and a defeat in one of the warm-ups, followed up by an ODI defeat and see a major crisis at all levels of the game. It is the nature of England fans to be natural pessimists and to talk down their side even when they are winning (“yes, but we are only winning against poor opposition”). There is though a big difference between the current ODI side – brilliant, but still a little erratic, barely 18 months into its new regime – and the Test side. The ODI side will occasionally have a brain-fade and lose a game, but I can see them chasing-down 380 if India are good enough to set it. The Test side is going through a massive crisis of confidence that may not be unrelated to the vicissitudes of its captain.

After the Australian disaster, England had the year from hell with six consecutive series that they were favourites to lose (but ended up losing just one of them): sometimes it just takes one player, or one tweak to change things around. After the 5-0 in Australia a couple of players went, a couple came in and the side looked so much better for it.

If you look at the last year, there is actually quite a lot of good news around the Test side. Hameed and Jennings look like the real deal. Chris Woakes has come on by leaps and bounds and is suggesting that an Anderson-less future (does anyone really think that he will go to Australia?) may not be as dark as predicted. Moeen Ali has started to score bags of runs and has been bowling much better (until Cook messed with his mind in India), Stokes has developed into a fine all-rounder, Jonny Bairstow has broken though. Jos Buttler may just be getting the hang of Tests, etc. The problem is that we are not getting eleven players all performing at once. Bangladesh and India both saw some wonderful individual efforts, but nothing that was the equivalent of the "eight-man shove" in rugby, with everyone pushing together.

It could be that all the side needs is a refreshed captain who has had a six-month break from the pressures of captaincy and a few pep-talks from his in-house psychologist: wife Alice. Or, it could be that Alistair Cook will go and that fortunes will only change with a new captain.

The suspicion is that the longer that this one plays out, the less likely it is that Alistair Cook will resign. It suits the ECB more for Joe Root to be kept away from the job until 2018 when they feel that he will be more prepared for the pressures: it is a high-risk strategy that could blow up their faces should South Africa administer a severe defeat this summer, even if the shock news that AB de Villiers will not tour England must have evened things up a little. As former opening partners, there is much mutual respect between Cook and Andrew Strauss and it is quite certain that Strauss will not sack Cook unless put in a wholly unsustainable position. It is also well-known that Cook is stubborn, does not resign, that his inclination is usually to hang on and try and turn things around (particularly after a chat with Alice), as was shown by his unwillingness to relinquish the ODI captaincy even long after his position had become untenable.

Right now the action moves to Cuttack. If England win the Toss and chase, do not put it past them to give India a surprise or two. The question is whether or not to tweak the side. Recently though, management has tended to accept that the odd game will be lost and to show faith. Faith, Hope and Charity. If England show faith in their XI from Pune they will hope that India show some charity. Strangely, India’s concerns mirror England’s: their top-order failed at Pune and their leading spinner was ineffective and costly. India got away with it in Pune thanks to a couple of special innings, but they may not get away with such charity twice.