England stuck in a philosophical loop

The first Test against Sri Lanka at Lord’s was a first sighting of the ‘new’ England. After the winter’s disastrous Ashes tour, this was a new beginning. A new beginning adorned with old traits.

Alastair Cook and Peter Moores have got off to a familiarly conservative start. It's like a re-run of the Strauss/Flower years...

Alastair Cook and Peter Moores have got off to a familiarly conservative start. It’s like a re-run of the Strauss/Flower years…

If there was one thing that Alastair Cook could have learned from his Australian counterpart Michael Clarke, it should have been to strive for positive, proactive and aggressive cricket. Now, it is unfeasible that England would be so aggressive as the Australians as they simply do not have, nor want, the same individuals. The Australians have often over-stepped the mark in their own personal rise from the doldrums, but Clarke is always willing to gamble on defeat to try and snare victory.

It is the antithesis of English cricket. Ever since the earliest days of Andy Flower, the emphasis has always been on avoiding defeat first and foremost, then trying to gain victory latterly. Cook, at least as a leader, is a product of this system. In Flower’s very first series, when England lost a four (well, five if you count the Antiguan debacle) Test series in the West Indies, it was a cripplingly conservative – negative – approach to the declaration that saw them cling on to that one nil deficit when they were well past the post marked ‘safety’. Having been obliterated in Jamaica, they handed the series to their opponents through maddening stagnation and a complete lack of proactivity.

Too often they declared their second innings far too late, denying themselves sufficient time to bowl out the West Indies. This same vein of conservatism saw their run rate, at times, in Australia grind to near standstill, whereas the Aussies had David Warner throwing the bat at everything and laying the foundation for large innings totals.

Even at the Oval last summer, Clarke threw in a shock declaration to try and win at least one Test. He declared an innings behind in the early 2013 series in India, trying to get that important breakthrough late on the first day after his own side had collapsed.

Can you imagine Cook being so bold? Can you imagine Cook being bold at all? The only boldness he has shown as England captain has been to insist that he is the right man for the job in the wake of the Ashes.

This summer, under returning head coach Peter Moores, was supposed to be a fresh start. Sure, there were some new players, but the record is jammed. The same conservatism is the theme of this new order. Cook has been backed at all costs by the ECB on the thinnest of evidence. Merely jettisoning one player is insufficient – one swallow does not make a summer.

A truly fresh start has not been sought. England believed that they were right all along. Encouraging starts for Gary Ballance, Chris Jordan and Moeen Ali have been tempered by the philosophical rigidity of the team’s leadership.

Sri Lanka were never going to chase down 350 runs, let alone 390 in the second innings. So why did England not declare on the fourth evening to give them a few extra overs to bowl the Sri Lankans out? If they were waiting for Ballance to complete his century, it was a remarkable doff of the cap to the importance of the individual at a time when they have rid themselves of their best batsman for being too individual.

Some things just never change and England’s conservative philosophy is undoubtedly one of them.

By Miles Reucroft

Pin It

4 comments on “England stuck in a philosophical loop

  1. Like you Miles, I’m no fan of Cook’s captaincy. I think it’s bad for the team and ( almost as bad ) deleterious to his own batting.
    As so often, the difficulty arises when trying to think of an alternative. There isn’t a player on the county circuit that could be drafted in, Brearley style, to resolve the problem. The options within the England camp are bleak. Among the batsmen, only Bell is a serious consideration and at no time in his career has he shown the least enthusiasm for taking responsibility. I can’t see much evidence of him being a more imaginative thinker than Cook. Among the bowlers, Anderson and Broad have lots of experience. In the case of Anderson he has never captained a side and, as England’s premium strike bowler can do without the distraction of leadership. Broad has had experience of captaincy at 20/20 level and might be worth consideration but there are issues related to tact and maturity that give me cause for concern. Prior, having just re-established himself in the side, deserves the opportunity to consolidate.
    So – we’re back to the original question. If not Cook, then who? Is there someone leading a county I’ve missed; is there a potential leader within the squad I’ve overlooked?

  2. Paul, you’re right – the leadership cupboard is bare. Someone who isn’t reduced to tears by Shane Warne would be nice, though! Can’t see Broad’s top lip quivering in a press conference as he moans about how unfair it all is that someone should criticise his captaincy. There was one player who stood up to the vocal and physical barrage in Australia, but he was mean about Cooky’s captaincy in Sydney, so he’s not around any more. At least he had the cojones for it.

  3. Pingback: Sri Lanka in England 2014 tour review | The Cricket Blog