BBC Sport - England coach Andy Flower targets 2015 World Cup
What do you think are the main England weaknesses?
Can England make themselves contenders and how?
For me England have too many problems, the formats they have excelled at and are excelling at cover up many of those problems. Let's not get too carried away with the number one Test status. England have beaten the aussies and now India in a 4/5 Test series BUT which of those two sides was on top of their game? England played well but did the opposition really fight them and push them hard? They drew with South Africa who couldn't kill England off or they'd have won, they beat Sri Lanka without Murali or Malinga and they beat Pakistan who are always it seems out of sorts these days.
So why success in the shortest and longest formats, but not consistently in the 50 over format? In T20s the bowlers only need to bowl four overs and 'bits n pieces' cricketers can get away with it, and a quick slog can overcome any slight expense with ball. Players like Wright and Yardy are king in that short format, that says it. In Tests you can get away without an all-rounder, you only need four bowlers. Therein lies the crux, in both T20 and Tests you don't need an all-rounder type, someone who can bat and bowl effectively. England's number seven problem.
That said, England weren't exactly world beaters in the 50 over format when Flintoff was in the side. The problem is deeper lying, all manner of problems which are self inflicted in some cases and just a lack of practice in others.
- Experience. I think against Sri Lanka Jayawardene and Sangakarra alone had more caps than the England XI combined.
- Selection. Theories aplenty but we end up with all sorts of 'bits n pieces' players
- Pinch-hitter. England have become obsessed with this since the early to mid 90s when it became part of the language. Where England often fail badly is not in scoring quickly at the start or end, but the middle overs - or muddle overs as I like to call them.
- Muddle overs. When bowling England look to get through their 4th/5th/6th bowler regardless of whether they have the opposition down and out or not. The opposition just accumulate and end up in a good position to push for the finish line. When batting England don't seem to know whether to stick or twist, never quite knowing when to accelerate or push for wickets seems to be a key problem.
There are enough good players to make England a competitive side, if they can apply themselves. You can't pick Bell and Trott in the same ODI side, and England need to find that elusive and key number seven. If they now don't build for 2015 then they've no chance, if it is back to Wright and Yardy, or go round and round in circles without picking someone and giving them a run in the side to prove themselves then we might as well say "here Ireland, have our spot". 2015 isn't that far off, we need to identify two candidates and stick with them. Let's say Stokes and Patel, play them for two years and if they aren't performing then at least we have two years to try the same again with another pair. Even if only one is going to be a regular in the World Cup side, the other would be good back up in the squad - our reserves for the last World Cup beggared belief and lacked experience.
I'd much rather we had a separate ODI side to tje Test side, but at least keep those in both sides to a small number like 3-4. Those not in the Test side can play more for their county and more 40 over cricket, not ideal but better than playing Tests all the time and only playing one dayers inbetween Tests.
What do you think are the main England weaknesses?
Can England make themselves contenders and how?
For me England have too many problems, the formats they have excelled at and are excelling at cover up many of those problems. Let's not get too carried away with the number one Test status. England have beaten the aussies and now India in a 4/5 Test series BUT which of those two sides was on top of their game? England played well but did the opposition really fight them and push them hard? They drew with South Africa who couldn't kill England off or they'd have won, they beat Sri Lanka without Murali or Malinga and they beat Pakistan who are always it seems out of sorts these days.
So why success in the shortest and longest formats, but not consistently in the 50 over format? In T20s the bowlers only need to bowl four overs and 'bits n pieces' cricketers can get away with it, and a quick slog can overcome any slight expense with ball. Players like Wright and Yardy are king in that short format, that says it. In Tests you can get away without an all-rounder, you only need four bowlers. Therein lies the crux, in both T20 and Tests you don't need an all-rounder type, someone who can bat and bowl effectively. England's number seven problem.
That said, England weren't exactly world beaters in the 50 over format when Flintoff was in the side. The problem is deeper lying, all manner of problems which are self inflicted in some cases and just a lack of practice in others.
- Experience. I think against Sri Lanka Jayawardene and Sangakarra alone had more caps than the England XI combined.
- Selection. Theories aplenty but we end up with all sorts of 'bits n pieces' players
- Pinch-hitter. England have become obsessed with this since the early to mid 90s when it became part of the language. Where England often fail badly is not in scoring quickly at the start or end, but the middle overs - or muddle overs as I like to call them.
- Muddle overs. When bowling England look to get through their 4th/5th/6th bowler regardless of whether they have the opposition down and out or not. The opposition just accumulate and end up in a good position to push for the finish line. When batting England don't seem to know whether to stick or twist, never quite knowing when to accelerate or push for wickets seems to be a key problem.
There are enough good players to make England a competitive side, if they can apply themselves. You can't pick Bell and Trott in the same ODI side, and England need to find that elusive and key number seven. If they now don't build for 2015 then they've no chance, if it is back to Wright and Yardy, or go round and round in circles without picking someone and giving them a run in the side to prove themselves then we might as well say "here Ireland, have our spot". 2015 isn't that far off, we need to identify two candidates and stick with them. Let's say Stokes and Patel, play them for two years and if they aren't performing then at least we have two years to try the same again with another pair. Even if only one is going to be a regular in the World Cup side, the other would be good back up in the squad - our reserves for the last World Cup beggared belief and lacked experience.
I'd much rather we had a separate ODI side to tje Test side, but at least keep those in both sides to a small number like 3-4. Those not in the Test side can play more for their county and more 40 over cricket, not ideal but better than playing Tests all the time and only playing one dayers inbetween Tests.
