For what it is worth, my belief is that Jos Buttler is a superstar in the making and will end up batting at 6 (or higher for Eng) Speaking to a few former pro's the view is that Billings is a better gloveman.
This is what Athers has written in today's times. The implicit criticism of Cook is made with the scalpel - but silently...
"England must resist temptation to make wholesale clear out"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/cricket/article4430691.eceIgnited at the end by a surface that hurried the series to a hasty and thrilling conclusion, the quality of the cricket played by both teams throughout the series could not hide that this was a second division contest, fourth against eighth in the world. Mediocre? Colin Graves was half-right.
As suggested here after the win in Grenada, these febrile times in English cricket exaggerate reactions to every victory or defeat. The “sack ’em all” brigade will be out in days to come, just as the pro-Cook and Moores brigade was to the fore last week. Such heightened, short-term responses are unhelpful.
There is much to like about England’s emerging players, the potential of the squad, and they did dominate here for long periods, but there are also too many holes in a team who have dropped to fourth in the world Test rankings for a reason. They remain decent, hard-working and committed but lack an opener, a spinner, some imagination and a killer instinct.
These weaknesses were highlighted again in Barbados, another could’ve, should’ve, would’ve game to go alongside others in the recent past when England have had their foot on their opponent’s throat but been unable to extinguish the last breath. It was a bad defeat: in three days, having won a good toss and established a decent first-innings lead, a really bad defeat.
How good it was, though, to see a West Indies team playing with discipline and pride, and the Kensington Oval rocking as the lights dimmed on the series. Something stirred here. Old greats hugged each other on the outfield and new, young players sensed the communal pride felt in the achievement. There was something to grasp on to for Phil Simmons, the new coach, as he attempts to forge a renewed spirit.
As for England, the next series looms quickly but there will be a sense of limbo now as we wait for the new director of England cricket to be appointed. Given the job spec, which heralds this man as accountable and the public face of the team, nothing can happen beforehand. Tom Harrison, the chief executive, has been in New York this week and Graves, the incoming chairman, in the Caribbean. Interviews have not yet been held, and while Andrew Strauss is the favourite, nothing yet is written in stone.
In any case, there is too much emphasis now on men in suits, or tracksuits. For all the need for a strategist and a planner, whoever takes that job is going to be hard pushed to have a profound influence. Three pillars are vital for the England cricket team to be strong: a county system that produces good international cricketers — one, for example, that produces a decent spinner somewhere along the line; a main selector (it could be the coach if his responsibilities are broadened), someone with accountability and authority to select the side, who can recognise who the best players are and who is forthright enough and independent enough to pick them; and then a strong, imaginative captain. All the rest is blather.
In the short term, the defeat in Bridgetown increases the heat on two men in particular, one of whom is not directly correlated with the above. Peter Moores was always going to get a shorter honeymoon period than most, given his previous tenure, and was dealt a shabby hand for his second go, but the ECB’s moves in recent weeks seem designed to increase speculation about his post.
Strauss is known to be lukewarm about Moores, given their previous association. Graves’s comments about the need for an “inquiry” should a “mediocre” West Indies not be beaten have heightened speculation, as has the recent news that Jason Gillespie has turned down the chance to apply for the coaching job in South Australia. Given the power vacuum, and given that New Zealand are already in England preparing for the series, it seems highly unlikely that Moores will not be given the opportunity to try to develop this young side in the near term.
When appointed, the new director may have responsibilities for selection and so James Whitaker’s position is vulnerable. As well as focusing on personalities, the system whereby the selectors pick a squad only for them then to take a back seat when the final XI is picked by the captain and coach seems odd. The collaborative system allows for a gap, through which, say, Adil Rashid might have fallen this tour. The selectors pick him in the squad; the captain and coach do not fancy him and the player is left kicking his heels and confused. Accountability is missing. That is where the thread of strong system, good selection and imaginative captaincy is vital.
English cricket needs to get to a situation where selecting the leading spinner for the county champions is not perceived as a “risk”; the chief selector needs to have enough influence and independence of mind to, if needs be, select a player when the conditions demand despite the reservations of others; and the captain needs to have the imagination to know how to use him. Once this thread is seamless and strong, the focus on suits and tracksuits will be seen for the irrelevance it is. It is, for example, neither the fault of Moeen Ali nor Moores that England are asking their main spinner to learn his craft in the middle of a Test match. Ali remains an exciting prospect, whose limitations were exposed here but will be camouflaged more in English conditions, and who must now be given time to improve, along with England’s other emerging players.
The return of Jonathan Trott, though, was a selection laced with uneccessary risk and was a misjudgment. Some may argue that it was a risk that England had to take. But why? Surely the more England can move on from the implosion in the Ashes under Andy Flower the better. It is not as if there are a lack of alternatives at the top of the order (Adam Lyth, Alex Hales, Mark Stoneman). Returning to a 34-year-old who had taken time out of the game, who had a suspected weakness against the short ball, who was part of a broken past and playing him out of position, smacked of poor judgment and — again — a lack of faith in the players emerging from the county system. His retirement has taken the decision out of the hands of the selectors.
The truth is that England’s team right now is neither as bad nor as good as those who see life in simple black and white terms would think. After all, had Jos Buttler stumped Jermaine Blackwood on four, we might now be reflecting on a 2-0 series victory. But going overboard would have been misguided with a team who lack an opener, a good spinner and have shown themselves to lack the belief and knowhow to convert winning positions into victories.
That is the most worrying aspect: the way they have struggled to convert winning positions again and again. At Lord’s against Sri Lanka last year they enjoyed a huge first-innings advantage; at Headingley, in the next Test, they threw away a winning position, as they did on the first day at Lord’s against India. They could not convert advantage to victory in Antigua or Barbados.
The focus for such failings should not fall upon off-field personnel. The game is played on the field, not in the boardroom.
Author
Topic: ENG Test Series v WINDIES (Read 126201 times)