General procedure when a resounding defeat takes place in Australia is for England to perform a serious autopsy digging deep into the bowels of the entire England structure, the men that hold positions within that such as those that pick and coach the team and an in-depth look at county cricket. A subsequent report is then published explaining the results of their investigation.
In the last dead rubber that took place between these sides at Sydney back in 2014 we saw Michael Carberry, Kevin Pietersen, Scott Borthwick and Boyd Rankin play what presumably will be their last ever Test match (for England anyway), cast aside after only playing the one Test in the case of Borthwick and Rankin and the other two were the two top runscorers in the series for England. That Test also saw a Steven Smith century, so at least one constant theme remains. The point being, after such a savage beating England feel an obligation to make drastic changes, almost try and highlight all the things they deem wrong within the current set-up or selection process, eliminate them and by implementing grand change aim to renew hope and enthusiasm for the times ahead.
Is that the kind of action, considered kneejerk or otherwise, that England require right now following a disappointing yet not wholly unsurprising whupping at the hands of our great rivals ? Not in my opinion. It could be argued that this group of players were the best possible collection available to the selectors at this moment in time. There were one or two contentious picks, but regardless of who was chosen there would have been people readily waiting to point out reasons they shouldn't be on the plane to Australia. We simply didn't have a big enough squad of players that were demanding selection either through outstanding performances in the recent past for England or a plethora of runs/wickets in the County Championship, bottom line: the squad (or any squad we would have taken) wasn't good enough to compete in Australian conditions.
So the selectors then felt they had to take a 'punt' on one or two players, players that may have the game to crack Australia, a Michael Vaughan type selection if you will. Enter James Vince. An attractive, languid and most aesthetically pleasing batsman that the selectors hoped would suit conditions in Oz, and a series opening 83 must have had a number of congratulatory high fives taking place behind the scenes. In true Vince style, he then churned out a couple of low scores followed by half a dozen promising starts before invariably nicking off attempting another eye-pleasing drive.
His Test average before this series was 19.27 after seven Tests. His average for Hampshire in 2017 in Division One of the County Championship ? An unspectacular 32.94. For me it was a baffling selection, one of pure chance and hope rather than any real belief he was the right man. Even Vince himself admitted to being surprised to get the call for this trip and it was a little unfair to expect any greater things than what he delivered.
The reason Vince's position is coming under more scrutiny than opener Mark Stoneman is because of how classy Vince looked when he batted. At times he looked like he should score thousands of Test runs (not all in this series mind) yet there is nothing on his cricketing record to suggest this would ever be the case but maybe, just maybe, down the order we can get a bit more out of him rather than just discarding him.
Are there better options out there for the upcoming trip to New Zealand ? Youngsters Joe Clarke from Worcester, Essex batsman Daniel Lawrence and the aggressive Liam Livingstone are being talked up by many but I think these highly talented batsmen deserve more time developing and proving their worth before being thrown in. Players such as Jos Buttler and Jason Roy are far too talented to not play more Test cricket but they have to do the honourable thing if they wish to do so and that is to concentrate on the four-day domestic game rather than barely represent their counties in favour of the T20 riches. They will inevitably miss some games due to England ODI selection, but I would love to see them both play more Championship games than the four (Buttler) and five (Roy) they made last season.
Vince shouldn't bat number three again for England in the foreseeable future, his technique simply isn’t tight enough to march out when the ball can still be very new and he will be asked to do so in conditions more conducive to bowling than he has just experienced. However, can England afford a player with a chink in his technique a spot at number five where the ball is less likely to deviate away from the middle of his bat as he looks to unfurl another attractive drive ? A similar option perhaps to Alex Hales.
For the record, I wouldn't have gambled on Vince for this Ashes but would rather have seen continuity with the inclusion of Tom Westley (some possible Essex bias there though it has to be said) or Middlesex's Sam Robson to bat at three. A player familiar with conditions, on the back of a solid county season, is aware of what Test cricket asks of you and has gone back to county cricket following his first crack at Test cricket and worked on his deficiencies. Again no selection would have been without some contention, and should Vince gain selection for the New Zealand tour it may again be scowled upon in certain quarters, my stance may have softened towards his inclusion for that trip on the proviso he is given the relative luxury of coming in lower down the order.
No comments:
Post a Comment