England Tour Of Bangladesh 2010

[Sureshot]

I have to show some man-love for Swanny. He has the best strike rate of any spinner who has taken as many wickets or more so than him. His ability to take a wicket so early in a spell, and seemingly almost every spell makes him a very dangerous weapon. He's turning himself in to the spinner that Monty could have (or should have) been. Not only that, but he's a solid fielder and a very good Number 8.

I look forward to watching England because of him.

 

[Lee1981]

totally agree, swann is definately the man now.

Freddie who?

 

[pcfan123]

Good job Cooky on taking us home but it does not make up for your captaincy this tour. Hopefully that is the last we see of you as skipper.

 

[McLOVIN]

last 5 out of 5 test went on to 5th day. Didnt lose by an innings, but margin was quite big. 10 wickets, 9 wickets, over 150 runs.

This lasted the longest. Almost full 5 days, just 7 over short. Without any help of the weather.

few 100s, Tamim, Rahim, Riyad, Shakib, Siddique

several very close to getting a 100, Riyad 96, Tamim 86, 85, Rahim 79, 95 (should've been the 1st one to get two 100s in 1 test for BD), Shakib 87, 96

i am just trying to look at the positives.

MacLovin added 7 Minutes and 43 Seconds later...

Oh the cruelty, Shakib out for 96 on his birthday.

Damn! its his birthday! I didnt even know! No 1 mentioned it. When Tamim was batting, English commentators kept mentioning it. "eng already gave him 2 bday gift" "oh nice party for a bday" blah blah. Didnt mention anything on Shakib's. Shakib was always overshadowed by Tamim, since that WC07.

That's something I'd expect Pietersen to do. Rush of blood to the head and he's out stumped. Should've been a bit more patient.

He had to go for it. Should have looked for a single though, but what if they couldnt get a single? Then Rubel woulda been on strike. He already fliped up a chance for Riyad. Riyad was on 96 as well. So Shakib didnt wanna take that chance.

bangladesh need a wicket to slow the scoring. this is very ODI this chase.

They just dont have that bowler who can get the break through on a crucial time. It used to be Rafique, always picked up a wicket.

 

[RoboRocks]

Cook's captaincy leaves a lot to be desired. He'll have to watch Strauss and learn from him (although he's not the best captain, himself).

Finn looked promising and was unlucky not to pick up more wickets than he did on those flat pitches.

 

[Owzat]

Good job Cooky on taking us home but it does not make up for your captaincy this tour. Hopefully that is the last we see of you as skipper.

Wouldn't count on it, when was the last time it wasn't a batsman (Flintoff, and look how that went), and when was it last not a stalwart of the side? I hope that England don't take too many "positives" from this, as if anything that happened in this Test can be applied to any other Test series. But analysing those who played :

Alistair Cook (54 Tests, batting average 44.98)

Captaincy was not great, then again perhaps we just pick up on his weaknesses as he is new to it while a lot ignored the obvious flaws in Vaughan's captaincy. Put the runs on the board and led from the front, just a couple of runs shy of a 45 career average

Michael Carberry (1 Test, batting average 32.00)

Didn't do a great deal wrong, but might not get too many chances at a recall and didn't do enough to put his name in the limelight for selection. Maybe Shah or Bopara could have been selected, for continuity if nothing else

Ian Trott (7 Tests, batting average 37.38)

His stodgy 64 made up half his series runs, hasn't passed 70 since his debut 119.

Kevin Pietersen (60 Tests, batting average 49.26)

Maybe expectations are high of KP, but he could and should be averaging 55+ and becoming a legend, rather than being a star player in the side who throws his wicket away too often and underachieves. He scored 250 runs in the series, but he is capable of taking Bangladesh standard attacks apart. Maybe this new found weakness against SLA bowlers will be his achilles heel

Paul Collingwood (59 Tests, batting average 43.62)

At one stage he looked all at sea in Tests, now he is mr reliable. His series against Bangladesh comprised a score of 145 and only three other runs. He bowled only one over, like Graeme Hick he is used mainly when nothing is happening and his bowling average suffers because of it. A more than capable fifth bowler, if only England would use him more

Ian Bell (55 Tests, batting average 42.26)

Much maligned Ian Bell scored a hundred when noone else did, that got more mention than he got credit for it! He often does little wrong, but still can't get any credit

Matthew Prior (29 Tests, batting average 39.82)

Hopefully his critics will get off his back, his keeping seems much improved and his batting average is in the upper bracket for keepers. Not much chance to shine with the bat against Bangladesh, one fifty in his three knocks

Stuart Broad (28 Tests, batting average 25.64, bowling average 36.16)

One of those who will be defended probably forevermore as bowling well without the "luck" or wickets to show for it. Took just six wickets in two Tests against Bangladesh, he really needs to step up to the mark in the bowling role he is asked to fill.

Graeme Swann (18 Tests, batting average 31.28, bowling average 29.67)

England for so long went with Ashley Giles when Swann has proven that turning the ball away from the (right handed) batsman counts for little if you can't get them out! SIXTEEN wickets in the series was a fantastic effort, Murali has played Bangladesh a lot and picked up cheap wickets (near 100 if not 100) and Swann shows that they are relatively easy pickings.

Tim Bresnan (4 Tests, batting average 50.00, bowling average 32.30)

Figures look pretty impressive, but the batting average is bolstered by one knock of 91 making up all but nine of his career runs. Took seven tidy enough wickets, but his career average comprises 10 wickets against the two current weakest sides. Time will tell if he gets another chance and what he makes of it.

James Tredwell (1 Test, batting average 37.00, bowling average 30.17)

Managed to help himself to some runs and pick up six wickets in his only Test, albeit only against Bangladesh. He won't displace Swann, at least he shouldn't, so his next chance might not come until we tour one of the Asian countries again or perhaps as back-up to Swann down under. But the England selectors are so inconsistent they might simply go back to Batty, try Rashid or do something inexplicable like they did with Kabir Ali - took five wickets in his only Test at 27.20 or something like that, and didn't play again!

Steven Finn (2 Tests, bowling average 44.25)

Just four wickets in two Tests is a disappointing return, probably thrown in too early but against Bangladesh he should have done more. That said he only bowled 51 overs which was less than Tredwell bowled in one Test and he wasn't trusted, reinforcing my claims he shouldn't have been picked - no point picking a bowler you don't trust and consequently underuse. Might not get another chance soon, unless England decide to play the same squad in the return series. I would think it better if Anderson is fit to use him and prepare for the Ashes tour which would be too much for Finn

 

[pcfan123]

Great series analysis Owzat,

I am starting to lose faith in Broad as a bowler, we can easily put Swann at 7 and have a better true seamer instead of Broad. Just don't know who would be a better option, but im sure there are some better wicket takers in county cricket than Broad. Finn looks like one for the future but with the recent string of new seamers from Bresnan to Amjad Khan, nothing has looked that spicy.

 

[King Pietersen]

Ian is actually his first name.

 

[Lee1981]

Great series analysis Owzat,

I am starting to lose faith in Broad as a bowler, we can easily put Swann at 7 and have a better true seamer instead of Broad. Just don't know who would be a better option, but im sure there are some better wicket takers in county cricket than Broad. Finn looks like one for the future but with the recent string of new seamers from Bresnan to Amjad Khan, nothing has looked that spicy.

Agree on broad, ive never warmed to him since he came into the side, to me he just doesn't look like he can turn a match or even bowl consistent,and his temperament is very questionable to say the least.
Cant see him being replaced though who else is there?

 

[Owzat]

I think perhaps the England selectors feel Broad is worth his place in the Test side because he is cutting it in ODIs, he "can bat and can bowl", we lack an all-rounder and they're hoping he will come good eventually. I also feel that England want the extra batting down the order, a long tail for me isn't all that helpful, but I bet England will feel vindicated by that lower order of Broad, Swann, Bresnan and Tredwell given the relative success in the last Test - of course oblivious to it being against the weakest side in Test cricket.

But in the ODIs his lack of a first class or one day hundred doesn't matter so much, it's unlikely he'll be called upon to bat much. And ODIs are somewhat different in terms of a much quicker scoring pace is required and his bowling is perhaps just more suited to ODIs. I don't know, hard to explain. I certainly think Swann should be batting higher in the order, he shows more often that he could get a Test hundred and has dug us out of deep holes recently. I'm sure he has opened for Notts in one dayers, possibly T20, and the only way I can see Broad improving is to go back to Notts and ECB ask them to open the batting with him and bowling, maybe only the batting in ODIs and the bowling in LVCC matches, but while he's playing for England I think his learning curve will be affected. Point being he needs to be more or less "the finished article" for England, in counties he can continue to learn without the same level of pressure/expectation. I think Anderson came back a better bowler after he was sent back to Lancashire.

Who else? Well I feel England rather leave themselves in the deep end with selection policy. Keep picking and ditching bowlers with regular inconsistency meaning no continuity. Because there was no line of natural succession, once Jones was unavailable because of injury, as was Flintoff on and off, Giles retired, Hoggard and Harmison were phased out then there was no integration of new bowlers into the old set-up (that being the Ashes 2005 winners), then who was ready to come in?!?? Prior to that we'd run through a few names but none had stuck, I'm intending doing a full review when I've decided on best format, but a few names that came in and barely made regular appearances are Johnson, Kirtley, Batty, Bicknell (too old really), Saggers, Rikki Clarke, Kabir Ali, Tremlett, Khan, Pattinson, Finn, Tredwell, Bresnan, Udal, Plunkett, Mahmood and probably a few more that came in and won't be seen again, some because they are well past their best, but it is such a hit and miss approach to selection it is unbelievable. We picked Sidebottom and as I recall it took seven years between debut and recall - 17/05/01 (debut) then 25/05/07 (recall) so actually six.

Like I say, the only thing stopping me doing the analysis of bowling selection "policy" is how best to do it, the data is easily collectable but how best to present it. Just a list of bowlers by series? A list of bowlers used in a time period with the number of caps and list of series they've played eg Joe Bloggs (4 Tests) vs Kenya 2015/16, vs SAF 2020/21. It's what might hit home the hardest in terms of presentation, we all know it happens. We lambast the 90s for one cap wonders and the selection of was it Hamilton, Adams and someone else (?) for debut in South Africa when we were 2-4? Nailed on head, well except it might just have been Adams and Hamilton. South Africa tour of 99/00, England 122 all out then 260 all out and lost by an innings. Adams made 16 & 1, and Hamilton 0 & 0 taking 0/63 in his only bowl in his only Test. Adams played the whole series, couldn't really afford to dispense with two tourists and I doubt enough batsmen were taken. Adams' debut 16 was followed by 1, 25,1,19,10, 31 and 1 - 104 runs at 13.00 with a HS of 31. He did take a Test wicket, that of Boucher.

HowSTAT! Match Scorecard

Well lambast the 90s as we might, are the 00s and 10s any better?!? A trail of poor selections across the decade, I might have to do one Test wonders by decade as well

 

[McLOVIN]

Cricket Records | Records | 2010 | Test matches | Most runs | Cricinfo.com

Top 10 Test scorer of 2010 so far. 4 Bdeshies are in there. How great is that! But they all played 5 matches, rest of them played 1 less. But still ...

 

[War]

The ECB should have a "squad", a group of 25-30 names which they intend to use for the next 3-5 years. There should be 10-12 bowlers in that list, the problem is the ECB picks "flavour of the month", or what appears almost random (Khan/Pattinson) and no surprise they don't succeed in the one Test before the players they filled in for return. Are Khan and Pattinson in the ECB long-term plans? I doubt it, so why pick them? When I say long-term, I mean a player who has already shown ability in the counties and who they can foresee playing in five years time if they progress, become more consistent or just by pecking order.

This would be great idea in theory if you have a great FC system with alot quality cricketers in batting & bowling coming through the ranks. But given thats we don't have that luxury in England such a pool system of "25-30 quality players" to choose for 3-5 year period. Inevitably you will have the odd random pick of players out of blue that the selectors may think at the set time could be of use at international level.

The selections of Pattinson & Khan were just dumb. Lets just leave it as that, even before they where selected i don't know what the selectors could have seen in them in FC cricket that would have convinced them that these two could have been international bowlers.

That entire Pattinson situation was one of the craziest things i've ever seen. He is now back playing domestic cricket in Australia, the selectors made a howler their.

You are being very hard on Plunkett, he can bat and bowl while Pattinson was almost what I'd call a wildcard pick, not a player standing out in the county championship and any blindman could see his selection was doomed to be a one Test wonder. Plunkett may not have set the Test scene alight, but he has potential.

I was never impressed with Plunkett even when he first played international cricket circa 05/06. He does nothing with the ball - no swing - no seam. If he managed to step up one day thank god, but for now i don't think he should be close to the international side in any format.

He didn't have to be selected let alone play

Well as you can see. Bresnan peformaned very well in Banglandesh & he looks like he can have alot of use in the test side againts stronger opponents in the future.

Picked too early, maybe long-term in the longer-term, but we start picking teenagers they will go the way of past players picked too young, discarded and forgotten about for 5-10 years

Finn's selection was more crystal balls peering into the future, placing all your hopes in someone who's too young to carry those hopes on his shoulders and at the same time jeopardising his future. He needs a season or two before he's likely to be ready for Test cricket, this wasn't quite in at the deep end, but he didn't swim (in the 'sink or swim' sense), he more splashed about and stayed afloat just about. Wait till his waterwings can be taken off, or we'll have another Read, Sidebottom, Foster etc

The Guiness ad may have a point it's product doesn't but the ECB could heed - the best things come to those who WAIT. Finn is a bottle of wine that's from grapes been picked before they are ripe, quickly crushed and bottled before they have time to ferment ie he's effectively a grape juice in a wine bottle, not ready and not nearly what you need (wine not grape juice)

Finn indeed may not be ready 100% for test cricket. But at the same time i think you are exaggerating the way the England selectors view Finn at this stage.

I certainly dont believe the selectors picked Finn as a crystal ball selection hoping againts hope that he will be the next young great fast-bowling hope at all.

Its simply put given the injuries to the senior bowlers. It was a good low-key test series againts the minnows of Bangladesh to give this young bowler a run to see what he is about. He looked impressive in burst & is clearly one for the future even if he doesn't have a any superb FC performances behind him to date.

You might believe that, I can't. I didn't think Batty would ever play again, then up he pops out of the blue in West Indies. Harmison should never play again, he got a recall because the selectors seem to think he's some "great" from the past and he's the answer to our distress calls, dusts off his cape and flies to wherever he's needed without a plane. Mahmood is another that will always do enough in county cricket that the selectors will think he may be an answer, never helped by their obsession with 'types', height, bounce etc

Well in a way i agree with you given the England selectors really have a habit of recalling joke players out of the blue for no reason. The selection of Michael Yardy for the T20 WC is another example.

But this time i am fairly sure we have seen the last of Harmo, Mahmood or Batty.

One would think if the selectors didn't take Harmison to South Africa recently on surfaces that suited his style of bowling in a few of these tests, they probably are finally fed up with him.

Also one would also hope that Mahmood recently failures in the ODIs in South Africa will FINALLY convince the selectors that he is not international quality. But i saw him in the provisional T20 WC 30 man squad, so i dunno

Batty won't be picked ahead for sure. I know he popped put out of nowhere during the 2009 Windies tour when Swann got injured. But this time with Tredwell around i can't see Batty getting involved in the national setup again.

Unfortunately their "hunches" are somewhat random, without much foundation and too often prove wrong. When did a player picked with little expectation of success actually succeed? And if there is one, I can't think of one that hadn't made a case in the counties, then how long was their success?

All true. But as i said above England don't have the luxury of picking all players with a strong foundation given that the talent poor in this country is limited & our domestic cricket in some area's isn't that fantastic. So unless that improves you will see players being picked on "hunches" from time to time for a while yet.