±«Óătv

±«Óătv BLOGS - Test Match Special
« Previous | Main | Next »

England unconvincing yet again

Martin Gough | 22:10 UK time, Friday, 30 March 2007

Martin GoughGuyana - Michael Vaughan complained that England players had been struggling with the “boredom factor” during a week in Georgetown and their approach to overcoming Ireland in their opening World Cup Super 8 fixture betrayed that.

There were two points where it looked like the side that upset Pakistan in the group stages could seal another major scalp.

A sixth-wicket partnership of 51 in just five overs at the death between Paul Collingwood and Paul Nixon saved England from posting a target well within Ireland's reach.

And the third-wicket stand between William Porterfield and Niall O’Brien was beginning to look dangerous when Andrew Flintoff ended it on 61 in the 29th over...

since their opening defeat to New Zealand but none have come against Test-standard opposition and none of their performances have assuaged fears over key weaknesses in the side.

Questions grow louder over the suitability of using three Test-style opening batsmen at the top of the order.

And Ireland lasted into the 49th over in reply but this was still the quickest England have bowled a “minnow” nation out having dealt with the top order.

Ireland showed their presence in the second stage is no fluke, but their top-order batsmen need to show more application if they are to challenge any more of the big boys.

They face South Africa and New Zealand over the next fortnight at the Providence Stadium, which has a dull, mud-coloured pitch ideally suited to their back-up bowlers.

Ireland’s attack began impressively with , who will join Derbyshire after the tournament, taking 2-5 in his first three superbly accurate overs.

County Wicklow’s Ed Joyce has faced interminable interrogation about his allegiances this week but he could have saved everyone the bother, given his injudicious leave to Rankin’s fifth delivery, which uprooted his off stump.

Captain Michael Vaughan, in his seventh innings back from his year out with knee surgery and so far without a half century, then fell to a soft prod at the hulking farmer’s son.

Even before Ian Bell was given out caught behind off a doubtful edge, making it 89-3 in the 22nd over, England were looking shaky.

They fall between the two stools of studious accumulation and suicidal shot-making because they neither score a mountain of runs from the first 20 overs nor keep wickets in hand for later.

Perhaps they will consider promoting Kevin Pietersen, who again did enough without ripping up trees in his run-a-ball 48, to make the most of fielding restrictions and faster bowling.

Along with spinner Kyle McKallan, Ireland’s assortment of medium-pacers kept things tight through the middle of the innings.

But, with Rankin suffering cramps, they could not keep the pressure on at the death as Collingwood cut loose on his way to 90.

Flintoff scored his first runs of the World Cup but he looked to be scratching around as he struggled for timing and it almost felt like a release when he played onto his stumps for 43.

He has been struggling with a stomach bug for much of the week and lacked rhythm when bowling too, his first three overs costing 20, although he returned to dismiss Porterfield at a key time then to finish off the tail.

The way the remainder of the attack faired against Ireland’s lower order, the aggressive Trent Johnston in particular, will have the likes of Australia licking their lips.

When the wicket-keeper debate resumes in May, England could well inquire into how long it will take to qualify after a pragmatic 63, showing the sort of improvisation England lacked until late in their innings.

England now head to , where their wives and girlfriends await, but so do Sri Lanka next Wednesday, with a far sterner test in store.

°ä´Çłľłľ±đ˛ÔłŮ˛őĚýĚýPost your comment

  • 1.
  • At 10:38 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • Ollie wrote:

I understand we could have done more than a little better but we cant be totally despondant to winning ugly??? If our big game players such as fred, kev and colly are warming up nicely now! All we need is Vaughn to complete the turnaround! maybe his wicket will inspire him.

  • 2.
  • At 10:47 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • Kevin Sinclair wrote:

This is the culmination of 4 years of ineptitude in the one day game under Duncan Fletcher.His selection choices are just as bizarre as in Australia.Plunkett took wickets and Lewis bowled accurately so they are left out again and again while Mahmood continues to go for plenty with no improvement in sight.I can only hope that this competition proves to be Fletcher's last.

  • 3.
  • At 10:55 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

England were average again, I agree - but lets see how they perform against Sri Lanka before we stick the boot in. They'v beaten what they should beat, unlike Pakistan and India who everyone raved about far more than England. I'm not saying I'm impressed with England, but lets reserve judgement for a week or two before sticking the knife in... at least they're in the Super 8.

  • 4.
  • At 11:04 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • Chris Preece wrote:

I predict that Sri Lanka will murder England.I watched them beat India here in Trinidad and only ' just lose' to South Africa.Slinga Malinga will kill our batsmen! Forearmed is forewarned!
Chris

  • 5.
  • At 11:07 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • Helen wrote:

Why don't England if they're so good, try to promote their own players, rather than nick those from other nations, who according to theICC regulations are not fully of test-nations status.

As an Irish supporter, with the amount of talent that is currently available, why are we waiting for Irish players to defect, can someone not give enough sponsorship to retain players here and support the sport. Surely ICC can look at giving other nations greater status,l as if we can do this with part-time farmers, what could we do with full-time sportsmen?? Surely the aim of sport is to open it up to other nations?


Helen

  • 6.
  • At 11:07 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • James wrote:

Amazing; 3 lacklustre wins against 3 minnows; I can't wait until Easter Sunday to see the Aussie's make 400 against us in Antigua (and I'll be there)

I wonder when OUR selectors will see the folly of playing a good test player and captain (Vaughn), but a very 3rd rate 1 day player who still has no centuries (as an opener - wow) and a very poor average.

Strauss may be high risk but overall is far better than both Vaughn and Joyce

  • 7.
  • At 11:13 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • Gordon Sharp wrote:

I thought it was a good leave by Joyce, to be fair. Classical stroke from Vaughany too, typical sort of genuine edge from him. Well done boys.

  • 8.
  • At 11:24 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • MikeyP wrote:

We will not get anywhere with Vaughan in the team. How long will it take for Fletcher and co. to realise that he is not, and never will be an ODI batsman? His average of around 27 is pathetic for an opening bat and he has NEVER scored a one day ton. Now he follows up 1 run against the mighty Kenya with six against Ireland.

We have him opening with Joyce and followed by Bell. What a powder puff trio at the top! Too late now but we need big hitters there like all the other countries have. No chance in the World Cup with this approach. Drop Vaughan and Bell and make Collingwood captain. It would work but it won't happen with this shower in charge.

  • 9.
  • At 11:36 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • Jon wrote:

What's with all the doom and gloom? If I remember correctly we beat Australia in the last tournament we played in and we're barely into the super 8's now. Australia see off a couple of minnows and couple of decent teams and they're world beaters again.

I honestly think Ireland have been a bit underestimated by anyway - give them some credit! From what I remember they've generally given the major nations a run for their money. I think they beat the West Indies a couple of years ago when they toured England, an ODI against England last summer, SA in the warmup games prior to the world cup, and obviously they've beaten Pakistan. It's no shame beating them comfortably even if it wasn't entirely convincing and frustrating at times. Stop whining and get behind the team.

  • 10.
  • At 11:59 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • Paul Gardner wrote:

Interesting reading. Are we talking about the Ireland side that beat those "absolute no hopers" Pakistan. The nation that was one of the favourites for the trophy.

Am I mstaken or have Ireland become a much more competetive side, with many of their player coached and developed in the Yorkshire cricket nurseries?

Never mind, an opportunity to the knock the England side, either fairly or not, should never be missed by the sports journo's, or indeed by their Radio 4 colleagues.

  • 11.
  • At 12:08 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Cricket fan wrote:

England have the mindset that they are so scared to lose that it is effecting some of the players performance.

That is eveident when under pressure, almost like the rabbit in the headlights syndrome.

This win although not in the style we would have liked to see is a win and it will give the team confidence that despite the bravado and the sound bites of late will be just what we needed.

Of course if we are crushed by Sri Lanka then the fragility of our bowling and batting will be exposed once again and we then may as well pack our bags.

  • 12.
  • At 12:17 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Damon wrote:

Typically negative reporting. Take the positives; Collingwood and Panesar. You didn't even mention Panesar and Vaughan's bowling which was excellent. If England's performance is under par so is your report.

I am from Derbyshire and cant wait for Rankin!!! I think he is going to be an amazing and also very interesting in seamer frienly conditions!!!

  • 14.
  • At 12:38 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • JustDoIt wrote:

England has no chance of moving to play the Semis.
England will win 2 at the most, of which one was today.

Aussies are ruthless, SA look to be good and on
their day they can be brutal even to Aussies.
New Zealand are also good and SL will also carry on.
SL will knock off WI, Eng, Ire and even has a good
chance to beat NZ.
So that leaves WI, BD, Ire and England to go home.

I am hoping to see there will be another upset and
probably thinking Ireland will beat BD.

  • 15.
  • At 12:48 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Paul C wrote:

Well done England. I'll happily congratulate you because all your own media are going to do is knock you. You looked comfortable all through the match. When you turn it on it'll be hard to defend.

As an Ireland fan I thought we did quite well. We shouldn't get down about this. We've already proven we're a force to be reckoned with after Zimbabwe and Pakistan. Not the upset we were looking for in the Super 8's but we'll reserve that for later in the tournament. Roll on South Africa...

See you in the final England?

  • 16.
  • At 01:15 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

"County Wicklow’s Ed Joyce has faced interminable interrogation about his allegiances but he could have saved everyone the bother, given his injudicious leave to Rankin’s fifth delivery, which uprooted his off stump."


Sorry, Martin Gough, are you suggesting his allegiance was with the Irish?

  • 17.
  • At 01:27 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Evan Fanning wrote:

I've just listened to Aggers on the BBc highlights repeatedly refer to Ireland as 'these people'. Considering England's recent performences I think this is optimistic at very best.

England beat Ireland fair and square tonight but had it not been for the amount of Irish extras it would have been a tighter game.

The three worst countries left in the Super 8's are Ireland, Bangladesh and England and I guarantee you that they will share the same plane home.

When Aggers talks about 'these people' he should have some awareness of where England actually are in the world game, rather than an opinion based on thirty years ago.

I'm an Ireland fan and am already proud of what they've achieved and I know it will help the game of cricket in Ireland. How many England fans can say the same when they come home with their only Super 8 victories being against Ireland and Bangladesh?

When will we stop the littany of excuses for bad performances from England. It is starting to sound like Monty Pythons cheese shop sketch when no matter what cheese is asked for a different excuse is rolled out for its lack of appearance on the shelf; "we were bored," "we were distracted." Guys I paid a fortune to see you in the group stages in St Lucia "fail to get the importance of the New Zealand game," "get frightened by Canada," and then "get nervous against Kenya." Boredom is something $1M athletes should not talk about. Buy yourself an ipod and watch some highlights from the other games where players care and prepare.

  • 19.
  • At 01:52 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Philip Whittington wrote:

I just have to say that if it was'nt for vaughan being captain he wouldnt be in the team he is one of the 'untouchables' he plays badly consistenly and stil gets to play, were as, as soon one of the other baters dont do there job its o drop them there playing badly they shouldnt be in the team, i wish that fletcher would have some balls and drop vaughan, we dont have space in the england team just for a captain he has to be performing every were else such as the likes of ponting, fleming and smith.

  • 20.
  • At 01:53 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Dan wrote:

I agree that England did not perform to their potential - however, they did complete a convincing win.

Jamie Lillywhite's article was poorly written with the usual journalistic negativity. I am concerned that even those who write for a living are unable to construct a cogent, grammatically correct sentence.

I should probably get out more...

  • 21.
  • At 02:15 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • simon - el salvador wrote:

I think they have a similar problem to the football team. The coach is really not sure what his best and most competitive team is, while they seem more frightened of losing than wishing to dare/risk/bet on their own undoubted talent. We have some great players, but they are short of confidence, and what they have is eroded by the (often deserved) press savagings.

We can win this tournament. It will take someone to light the spark, free the players to cut loose and enjoy the game again.

I think we probably do nee new coaches in both national teams shortly, incidentally. Fletcher looks tired and is becoming embittere, while McClaren was an idiotic appointment, which has done neither him nor the nation any favours.

  • 22.
  • At 02:31 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Magic wrote:

You may all mock, but I remember the Football World Cup last year and would you have backed Italy after the Group stages??


England CC have a far better record than England FC in World Cups.... better to run into form than be in form I say!!!!

  • 23.
  • At 02:32 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Breado wrote:

I disagree with so many who believe that England & Pakistan not good sides. No man, them Irish fellas look a lot better that those biased so called experts say.

It says a lot for the value and experience of playing competative county cricket in England. The West Indies decline as a team and the same for Pakistan, started when less of their players joined up to play in England.

Of course, that is notthe only problem, but it's a major factor. Besides many of the teams like West Indies, India, Pakistan and England have been traveling a lot lately and playing a lot of cricket. This is bound to affect their game. Seems to me like England peaked a year or so ago, then played in Pakistan, England and then went to Australia for a looooong, tough and endless series of test and odi matches. Too much cricket I say. It is so obvious that the players are burned out!

  • 24.
  • At 02:37 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Breado wrote:

I disagree with so many who believe that England & Pakistan not good sides. No man, them Irish fellas look a lot better that those biased so called experts say.

It says a lot for the value and experience of playing competative county cricket in England. The West Indies decline as a team and the same for Pakistan, started when less of their players joined up to play in England.

Of course, that is not the only problem, but it's a major factor. Besides many of the teams like West Indies, India, Pakistan and England have been traveling a lot lately and playing a lot of cricket. This is bound to affect their game. Seems to me like England peaked a year or so ago, then played in Pakistan, England and then went to Australia for a looooong, tough and endless series of test and odi matches. Too much cricket I say. It is so obvious that the players are burned out!

  • 25.
  • At 03:08 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Soulberry wrote:

England could win its maiden world cup here.

England does take time to gather momentum, and tends to acquire a considerable head of it. The only problem that has failed to take this classic English locomotive right through and across the line is the steam leaks out just a few miles from the station. If they can prevent that as they did in Australia just a while ago, they could be the best team at the end of it all.

Meanwhile, they're shoveling in the coal and building up a dangerous head of steam quietly. Of course it looks ugly, but don't mistake where it is leading up to.

  • 26.
  • At 03:24 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • tm wrote:

Flintoff's got a stomach big eh?

  • 27.
  • At 04:18 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • lavin wrote:

srilanka has just a lot of luck on their side.. if they did not have that they would have been packing their bags by now to go back home..And Malinga is the biggest fluke hardly is he a danger to any batsman..

  • 28.
  • At 04:59 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • vincw smith wrote:

When you win, you win. Against the minnows, all a stickleback needs to do is to survice. England was a successful stickleback against Ireland. But who knows how a stickleback will fare against an Australian shark or a Sri Lankan barracuda?

  • 29.
  • At 05:47 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Matt Downs wrote:

So Ravi Bopara is picked as a batting all-rounder and plays at number 8 and bowls zero overs. Having only bowled one over against Kenya, Michael Vaughan obviously rates him... Give the poor guy a chance at proving his worth, surely he can't do any worse than the top 3 batsmen at present and Collingwood's bowling averaged more than 6 an over..!

  • 30.
  • At 05:50 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Ananda Amatya wrote:

Stop criticizing, and support England for their determined players! Surely, one needs to look at the good points, like Vaughn's bowling, and not just go on about the bad points. It just is not "cricket" to focus on the failings without even a mention of what has been achieved after England's miserable performance in the Winter Ashes series. Any way, Ireland should be commended for how well they have been playing, especially against Pakistan. They are certainly not "minnows", any longer.

  • 31.
  • At 05:59 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • mark in cambodia wrote:

Can't understand the batting order - surely Pieterson and Collingwood should both be in the top four, as the best one-day batsmen. Then Flintoff would make a good number five and either Vaughan, Bell or Joyce could come in at 6. I'd also be tempted to open with Nixon. Surely to win the competition England have to take a bigger risk.

  • 32.
  • At 07:00 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • jane cable wrote:

Please make sure your facts are right - Vaughan scored 62 in the warm up game against Australia and by my reckoning that's a half century.

  • 33.
  • At 07:55 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Ozzie wrote:

Why are me so negative in this country? And why do we continually twist the story to suit our negativity.

".. three test style openers...."

Vaughan hasn't opened for a long time in tests, even when fit he has been coming in at number three, and as for Bell and Joyce... well you insult our intelligence by insinuating as such. This is a matter of form more than tactics.

As for the bowling. Why don't we just wait and see until we come up against a team that aren't so poor that they allow the run rate to rise to 12 and over before having a fruitless slog to regain some respectability.

Certainly not perfect.. but why don't you save your eagerly stored bile for a defeat?

we required some special if we want to won the worldcup

  • 35.
  • At 08:26 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Ian Pollard wrote:

The negative commentary coming from all the assembled English journalists - both print & media - must be having an adverse effect on the morale of the side.

Sure England aren't winning pretty, but they are still winning. As has been said so many times, this is a long tournament, and the sides that are peaking now may be past their best by the time the knock-out matches come round.
Should England beat Bangladesh & the West Indies, they would probably need one win from their remaining three matches to qualify for the semi-finals. I agree that on current form, this looks unlikely... but winning their last 4 games of the CB tournament looked very unlikely!!!

Having said all this, there are changes that need making. Joyce is clearly not in good form, and I think Strauss should be brought back.
I agree with the comments about Bopara - if he's in the team, batting at 8 and not bowling is a complete waste. I would also drop Mahmood, as he doesn't seem to have much of a clue when someone tries to get after him. Plunkett is a much better bet, and is more likely to take wickets at the start of an innings.

I personally think it will be hard for England to make the semis, but it's not as bad as it currently seems... cheer up everyone, Indian or Pakistani supporters would be happy to be in our position!!

  • 36.
  • At 09:20 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Matt Clark wrote:

Drop Vaughan. He has done nothing to justify his place in the team. We will not develop a suitable alternative captain if everyone continues to hold time until Vaughan is fit. Mahmood and Anderson are not and never have been international standard bowlers. Start looking for new blood with talent that can be developed (look at the England A team). At least that way if we lose we can be positive about the future.
Its sad because normally Im a very positive and forgiving England fan. But there are few in the current england team who I rate .

  • 37.
  • At 09:24 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

I have to say I agree with all the people complaining about the constant negative reporting. Every time England have won a game in this world cup, the journalists have come out and criticized them endlessly, which I think is totally unfair on a team who are obviously trying hard and have won 3/4 games. Sure, we shouldn't look at the world through rose tinted glasses and England have got some big games ahead - but the endless criticism cannot be helping them. I think one of the problems with English sport right now is that they spend too much time listening to the negative press and it demoralizes them. If their own nation cant get behind them, what chance do they stand? England are having their best run in a world cup for a long time and I think more people should take note of that instead of jumping on the opportunity to point out their flaws.

  • 38.
  • At 09:34 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

If they are so bored they could try going to the nets and practising

  • 39.
  • At 09:38 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • migeul wrote:

Loye and Broad say no more.

  • 40.
  • At 09:44 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • NIGEL PARSONS wrote:

I AM DUMBFOUNDED NOT JUST AT OUR CRICKET TEAM BUT FOOTBALL AND RUGBY ASWELL. WE SEEM UNABLE TO GET THE BASICS RIGHT FOR EXAMPLE : BATSMEN MAKING ATTACKING STROKES AND IMPROVING STRIKE RATE PER BALL , BOWLERS WHO CANT BOWL UP ON A LENGTH AND STRAIGHT. BASICS BASICS BASICS

  • 41.
  • At 09:50 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • NIGEL PARSONS wrote:

MAKE ATACKING STROKES WHEN OPENING AN INNINGS AND BOWL FULL AND STRAIGHT AT THE DEATH OR WHEN HAVING TEAMS STRUGGLING. ITS BASIC COMMON SENSE CRICKET.

  • 42.
  • At 09:56 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Paul Varley wrote:

Given Vaughan's useful spell of bowling mid-innings, maybe he should reinvent himself as an all-rounder and drop down the order!

  • 43.
  • At 10:14 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Ted wrote:

Please can someone explain to me the oft used comment by the so called experts, of "How many runs you need to win on this wicket". Is it not sufficient to just go out and get over 300 runs if put in (just like the Aussies) or bowl them out for 100 runs if you put them in (just like the Aussies). Or is the expression just a euphemism for we just havn't got the players to hack it or the coaching team for that matter. I daren't mention the selectors or the ECB, life is to short

  • 44.
  • At 10:20 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • bob wrote:

I think people are far to quick to judge in some circumstances.

The middle order is fine, seems to be just warming up.

Top order, leave joyce to play his normal game, give vaughn the role as an attacking opener, bell is doing ok, his time will come

Bowlers are my main worry

flintoff - good
panesar - good
collingwood - one bad game doesnt make him bad

anderson - looking a bit ragged
mahmood - why even take him
lewis - surely he should be playing
plunkett - bit better than mahmood i guess


Lets see how we do against Sri lanka - then we will know if we have any chance of a semi spot

One good thing to come out of the last 12 mnths - we now have a decent wicketkeeper batsman

If worst comes to worst - we could make up the following team quite quickly

Nassar Hussein in for Joyce
Michael Atherton in for Vaughn
David Gower in for Bell
Pieterson
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ian Bothom in for Mahmood
Bopara
Nixon
Anderson
Panesar

  • 45.
  • At 10:38 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • josh wrote:

No matter who was selected we would have struggled in this World Cup. But we would have had a better chance with no Bell, Vaughan or Anderson. Loye, Shah and Broad instead with Collingwood as captain - and probably Benning instead of Joyce as well, even though he played for my club (aahh).

  • 46.
  • At 10:45 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

We won, job done move on, get off there backs.

  • 47.
  • At 10:55 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Ed wrote:

The grim reality of English one day cricket at the moment is that we are the most boring team to watch still left in the tournament. Scores of just over 250 against minnows must have the big boys licking their chops. The exciting players in the team such as Flintoff and Pietersen are being forced to rein in their attacking instincts because of the dross above them in the order. Can you imagine England getting off to a flyer such as Australia did against SA and vice versa? We have got our one successful 'grafter' in the form of Collingwoood why do we need a three in a row at the top of the order? Paul Nixon is a highlight for me. He works hard at his game and does exactly what the situation requires, usually quick runs at the end of the innings. England one day cricket is letting its lack of talent in the team strangle those who are genuinely world class.

  • 48.
  • At 11:11 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Leonard Pilling wrote:

Supporters are supposed to support, so lets support and stop critisising all the time. A win is a win for goodness sake. The soccer team win 3 to nil and get booed off, the cricket team win by 48 runs and it's not good enough, the cyclists win by the skin of thier teeth and it's wonderful.
Lets SUPPORT our teams ENGLAND.

  • 49.
  • At 11:20 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Peter wrote:

Well done England. I would have liked Ireland to have won won, but they didn't. I do wonder how much the continuous carping (note use of fishy term like minnow - rather clever, hey?) from the media and supporters affects England teams - the football forums are just the same.
Loved the typo - "stomach big", and was the "seal" in paragraph 2 another watery reference or a typo?

  • 50.
  • At 11:36 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • richard bloor wrote:

Dull....the hole event. Its needs full grounds but due to the length of the whole thing and just one game day it dont work. It dont feel like a world cup.
England...who knows, the top order is not right, for Ian Bell see Andrew Strauss...go figure.
England could not win another game, on the flip side they could win the dam thing!

  • 51.
  • At 11:42 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Mark Higgins wrote:

Sometimes it is easy to be too cautious against the lesser teams in a tournament like this and when you play three in a row, performances are bound to be a little turgid. True, there have been clinical disposals of such sides in this tournament (South Africa v. Holland, for instance) but there are plenty of examples the other way, both from cricket and from other sports. For example, Australia v. scotland in 1999 only produced a five-wicket win for australia, Brazil only beat the USA 1-0 in 1994, an we should also remember South Africa only managing to dispose of Georgia 46-19 at the 2003 world cup, Georgia having been thrashed 84-6 by England the previous week. So the fact that we've beaten canada by 51 runs, Kenya by 7 wickets and Ireland by 48 runs, and the fact that these are not enormous victories, doesn't per se worry me.

What is far more worrying is the bizarre selection. What has Liam Plunkett done wrong? Is John Lewis there as a tour guide? Surely Andrew Strauss could score quicker than ian Bell? surely Matthew Hoggard could score quicker than Ian Bell? What's going on, lads? 31 off 76 balls? I'd remove Bell and bring in Strauss and hope that his long spell on the sidelines enables him to show his true class at the crease. We also need Liam Plunkett back, and maybe John Lewis should be considered to take over from Jimmy Anderson who seems to have run out of power again.

  • 52.
  • At 11:49 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Mark Kidger wrote:

It's fascinating to read these comments. England are still in the tournament and still have a reasonable chance of making the semi-finals. India and Pakistan have gone home and one more defeat will leave the West Indies on the brink of elimination. Things do not look quite so desperate. We now come up against a Sri Lankan side that was totally outclassed by South Africa until the last two overs of the match and even then still lost. That is the key game of the tournament for England: win it and the semi-finals beckon; lose it and probably go home. Let's wait and see the result before moaning.It's not as if we expected England to sweep all before them before the tourament; in fact, many posters here expected us to fail to qualify for the Super Eights.

The key is still to be alive at the end of week 2. If we fail to qualify, my bet is that it will only be on run rate.

  • 53.
  • At 11:57 AM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Mahesh S. Panicker wrote:

Martin you stil remember your last week write up regarding Ireland and Bangladesh?
any change of Heart?

  • 54.
  • At 12:00 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Micky wrote:

What has everyone got against Anderson? He ALWAYS seems to pick up wickets with the new ball and doesn't go for much. He wouldn't be in my first-choice Test team but he is Englands best new ball One-Day International bowler since well... ever. About England's top three (VJB) they are capable of going 5/6 an over early on. Remeber Joyce in the CB series, he was fantastic at stepping to leg and smacking it over cover. Bell is really England's Dravid, and well you don't see many Indians (until recently) asking for him to be dropped. As for Vaughan, he has one of the best ODI captaincy records in the World. The idea that Collingwood is suitable to be captain is dementedly flawed, he has barely captained Durham and THIS IS A WORLD CUP!!!!! To change your captain during a World Cup, when you aren't forced to is insane. As for his batting, am I the only one who saw him play fantastically well against Australia in a warm up game with Bell at 5 runs an over!!

  • 55.
  • At 12:05 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Cheri wrote:

Let's give the english a chance. We have scored the all important two points against Ireland which could have been a potential banana peel.

In a 6 week campaign, it's all about peaking at the right moment. The match against the Lankans on Wednesday will prove our mettle and as to whether England are going to be genuine contenders this time round.

KP needs to be promoted to number 3 as we need to have our best batsman face the maximum number of overs. He would be ideal to take maximum advantage of the fielding restrictions.

Saj Mahmood needs to make way for Liam Plunkett. While they may be equally expensive, Liam has more chance of taking wickets and can use the long handle if he utilises his potential

  • 56.
  • At 12:36 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Neil Mumford wrote:

Still big doubts about our firepower or lack of it. We won't win the World Cup with a top three of Joyce, Vaughan and Bell. Must bring Strauss back for Joyce, even if he was out of form last time he played. Should have had Loye opening as well, cos though he never totally came off, at least he provided some impetus at the top of the order.
As for the bowling, well why Mahmood? He gets hammered every time he bowls! Would prefer Plunkett as, though he goes for a few, can always take wickets. Though, why the selectors have such a downer on Lewis, I don't understand. Also, Broad should have gone ahead of Mahmood. Not being wise after the even, as I had Loye and Broad in my original squad.
Another point that doesn't seem to have been raised, is why Trescothick and Harmison are not there, when it is not for cricketing reasons.
Find it disappointing that for reasons of stress and retirement from 1 day cricket (at his age!), neither of them are there, as they would provide us with the firepower at the beginning of each innings that we are so lacking.
Can just imagine any of the Aussies being out because of stress or retiring from one day cricket while supposedly still at their peak!

  • 57.
  • At 12:37 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • magnus wrote:

why are people still berating the poor old poms for their performances???? i thought they played briliantly against the irish. collingwood probably played the innings of his life and how the english bowlers managed to keep a pretty combative and lengthy irish batting line up to only 220 is a great effort. well done. at least they will come 7th and not 8th. again, simply outstanding!

  • 58.
  • At 12:43 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

It might have been more interesting if Ireland had been able to bat first - and under less pressure maybe have got to about 230. If England had batted as they did then chasing 230 might have been more interesting.

Or on the other hand if (it's always if) Bray and Morgan had managed 20 or 30 between rather than a couple them England might have wobbled a bit more on the bowling front.

Ireland will have been happy to have caused a few problems here and there and to have had England rely on the big guns performing.

I still think England should have got Collingwood to three with Bell at five.

  • 59.
  • At 12:44 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Bemused wrote:

Just out of curiosity:

Where are all the posters who predicted that England would lose to Canada?

Where are all the posters who assured us that England would lose to Kenya?

Where are all the posters who said that England would not even reach the Super Eights?

Where are all the posters who said that Ireland would beat England?

Are these the same people who are saying that England have no chance of making the semi-finals???

Of course, we could just award the World Cup to Australia, cancel the rest of the tournament and all go home, after all, all results have gone exactly as predicted so far, haven't they?

  • 60.
  • At 12:52 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Philip Tallentire wrote:

England's selection policy truly defies belief.
After countless one-day humiliations - Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Champions Trophy, early Commonwealth Bank games - we stumble on a successful formula that sees us beat Australia three times on the spin to take the series.
At the first opportunity, that team is ripped apart to accommodate players who have no genuine one-day pedigree - Pietersen apart.
Loye was worth sticking with due to the fact he upset the new ball bowlers' rhythm and can attack during powerplays. As commentator Mark Taylor said of Loye in the final when he was dismissed in Sydney: "At last, the bowlers can now get back to bowling line and length."
His age shouldn't come into it.
And why was Plunkett dropped? But for a dodgy lbw decision against Canada, he would have taken three wickets in that game. Yet he was sidelined against Kenya and Ireland.
With Mahmood hardly setting the world on fire, can we expect a recall?
Yes he can be expensive, but he's a proven taker of top order wickets, as he proved in Australia.
Bell's slow scoring and continued failure to build truly big totals is criminal at number three and the wasted third powerplay on Friday - 12 runs in 5 overs - is nothing less than shameful. It's unthinkable that Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka or South Africa would allow themselves to be tied down in such a fashion against mainly part-time opposition.
Thank God for Collingwood, it's not pushing it to say he's saved England from two potential humiliations.

  • 61.
  • At 01:05 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • stev666 wrote:

"England have the mindset that they are so scared to lose that it is effecting some of the players performance."

Is it suprising when you see the reactions or read the comments of the majority of supporters?. Some of them are nearly as bad as the england footie teams supporters, and just as fickle. Not only that as soon as the media smells an inkling of a weakness they move in for the kill also. I for one dont find that midset suprising at all. If I had the talent (and I stress that I am no where near as talented as any of these guys) I wouldnt pull on an Engalnd shirt for all the tea in China, not through fear but because of some downright ungrateful and unrealistic reactions by press and public.

  • 62.
  • At 01:09 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Tonka wrote:

So you poms still have Duncan Fletcher as your coach? You were satisfied with his performance in Australia then?

You don't think you deserve better - is that it ?

Or do you savour the bittersweet taste of defeat?

  • 63.
  • At 01:14 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Steve Simpson wrote:

I agree with those who say that this World Cup is a marathon and not a sprint, some teams will peak too early and then find themselves on the way home well before the final. England haven't played at their best yet but have won three out of 4 matches and are a team who thrive on momentum especially if they start winning.

I would drop Mahmood though with either Plunkett or Lewis depending on the conditions and also give all the batsmen a chance, one loss won't matter if it means we get things right for the latter stages.

  • 64.
  • At 01:17 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • David wrote:

I was content with England yesterday. We weren't flourishing, but we won and won by more than 50 runs. All our top players looked in good touch which can only bode well for the up and coming matches. I don't think we've got much chance of reaching the semi-finals so I don't think there's any need to be dis-heartned.

  • 65.
  • At 01:23 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • chris wrote:

Maybe its about time they bring strauss back leave joyce and move pietersen up to no2. because if youre gonna bat first you have to make sure youre on top of the bowlers like what the australian team have been doing.

  • 66.
  • At 01:50 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

I take your point about England tending to underperform against minnows, but don't think this necessarily means they will be trashed by top contenders. It's a question of stepping up a gear and, following the ODI performance in Australia, I am fairly confident England can do this. My main concern is that Vaughan is in the side. I don't think his captaincy strengths are appropriate for ODIs and as a batsman he shouldn't be there. Mal Loye adds an element of excitement to England's openers and makes bowlers less confident. This helped Ed Joyce construct his innings and made the whole thing much more interesting to watch. The combination also hammered Australia!

  • 67.
  • At 01:53 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Glynne Williams wrote:

Cor here we go again: England wins a match, they're criticised, they lose one, they're criticised. I really do not know why half you guys are writing up with the same bleat about who's in the team every single time they play. It's not surprising the Australians call us whinging poms.

You might like to bear in mind that not a few of the team were coached by Bob Woolmer, knew him extremely well and were seriously affected by his hideous death, not least Ian Bell.

You can also bear in mind they've got a lot further than Nasser Hussain's team a few years ago.

What did the great Martin Johnson say? A win is a win is a win..........

  • 68.
  • At 02:06 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • cricket mad wrote:

You cant complain about Englands performance. If they are saving up energy, great! But you are going to have a couple of bad scores in an innings and it just turns out they were at the beginning!

  • 69.
  • At 02:23 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • ted wrote:

And another wonderful comment. David LLoyd "we've got it right in the tests but do not seem able to do it in the one dayers". Pardon.
Was it not 5 zip in Aussie.

  • 70.
  • At 03:30 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • jeff wrote:

bonkers

  • 71.
  • At 03:49 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • shahid shah wrote:

sachin tendulkar took 94 one day matches to score his first hundred. Now he got 41 in 384 ODIs. Thats where it always help when you play more and more ODIs. I hope Vaughan will score his first hundred soon. But he has only played 81 ODIs. Right now if you take the minnows out, Engaland is the most inexperience side in super 8. England play less amount of one day cricket, hence they they will never catch with other teams in terms of experience. So there will always be the excuse whenever England play.... INEXPERIENCE... When will they become experience?

  • 72.
  • At 04:04 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • ajaya wrote:

re: England could well inquire into how long it will take Niall O’Brien to qualify after a pragmatic 63
when will this poaching stop? add ed joyce to the current irish setup and you have a much stronger team, one that would challenge the bigger teams even more. the icc should look into this. england acquiring players from associates makes the associate field weaker. perhaps that is really the english intention.....

  • 73.
  • At 04:24 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Micky wrote:

Why has Plunkett been dropped... for Mahmood? I can understand Lewis being brought in because he is a steady bowler who does take wickets. But Mahmood? What has he done in ODIs or Tests or for Lancashire or for ANYONE to prove that he can do something in a World Cup. Plunkett, however, in these conditions where the ball is swinging a mile ealry on, can rip out, along with Anderson, World Class top order batsmen. Batting wise, also he has the ability to be a solid number eight. He has an ODI 50, something that the recently proclaimed Paul Nixon can't even achieve, whereas Mahmood hit a pair of good shots against Pakistan and suddenly he is a Number-eight in Tests and a 9 in ODIs. BRING BACK "PLUNKERS"!!!!

  • 74.
  • At 04:29 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Paul Varley wrote:

Re the Joyce comments, it's very simple. Joyce's ultimate aim to play Test cricket. Ireland with the best will in the world won't be playing Tests any time soon (ICC wouldn't want to risk another Bangladesh: B'desh have a decent ODI side now, but still have trouble in Tests). The Irish team seemed content enough with Joyce's departure, so there isn't much else to say really.

  • 75.
  • At 06:27 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • mick wrote:

what the hell was the score

  • 76.
  • At 06:44 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Mark McCoy wrote:

If eng.want to poach the likes of Joyce et al for the TEST side, fair enough. But why should they (or anyone else)poach other team's players for their mediocre ODI team(s)?
Not only does it hamper the development of the sport in those countries, poaching their 'best' players but is a slap in the face, eg.for Irish cricket, who nutured & developed Joyce as a cricketer.
The rules regarding international cricket eligibility are a Joke, but to assist smaller countries, the likes of the I.C.C. should give first prteference to their selection, to their 'mother' country, not the nearest playground bully, be it Eng.(& Wales!) or anyone else....
Being Irish, dont like to see our players being poached;If people are misguided enough to go to play for Eng.from abroad, that's up to them.....but at least let the smaller countries have First call on these players, in this type of tournament.....the big countries like Eng.have hundreds to choose from, FFS!

  • 77.
  • At 07:11 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • jonathan Akeroyd wrote:

can I ask a question, why is the bbc ball by ball commentry online so juvenile, I am young and don't mind humour but ever ball is met with some stupid comment. Interestingly enough I have just checked football commentry and it is purely factual so maybe they are not taking their responsibilities seriously ..... shame

  • 78.
  • At 07:38 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Martin Gough wrote:

Mahesh S. Panicker, No change of heart yet. I was impressed by individuals within the side but there was never a long period during the game when the result was in doubt. To be honest, it will take a win or two to make me pleased by the presence of the smaller sides.

Simon, I wasn't suggesting Ed Joyce had any problem with his allegiances, merely that a big song and dance was made over someone whose match lasted five balls.

  • 79.
  • At 08:14 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Simon Corlett wrote:

Just on a point of order...re Bell's "catch" dismissal.
The slo-mo replay close-up of the catch showed not only the seam switching ( a sure sign of contact ), but there was also a "thud" noise ( slo-mo "nick" )
As we say in Ireland, Martin - look in the book .

  • 80.
  • At 08:19 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Eddie Wilson wrote:

Once again an unimpressive performance by England.It was sad to see Andrew Strauss left on the dressing room bench yet again.Ed Joyce has got his centuary - true - but that has been about it.Strauss has a proven record over the last few years.If we are to continue our "winning ways" surely resorting to experience is the better option.The one thing we should NOT do as a nation is start doing the usual knocking that is the favourite pasttime of the british press.With the 2012 olympics on the horizon maybe we should get some practice at praising our sportsman.Howzat for a novel idea?

  • 81.
  • At 08:42 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Roomeatthetop wrote:

I can full understand Irish people being upset about Irish players playing for England. England seem to have a long history of this kind of behaviour. Can anyone tell me how many South African nationals have played for England?

Come to think of it how many South Africans are playing at this world cup? Seems like every team has at least one...

  • 82.
  • At 08:43 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Dan wrote:

Surely you mean Flintoff has been struggling with a stomach BUG instead of BIG? ;)

The England team cant have much of an imagination if they find Georgetown boring. When I visited Georgetown, I found that theres quite a fair number of things they can do as well as a number of great places they can visit including the one of the highest waterfalls in the world (amid a short domestic flight).

There is a number of bars, clubs, couple or so cinemas etc in Georgetown..even an excellent market, historical venues like the largest Woodern Cathedral.

In my opinion, their "boredom" is more or less an excuse for their lackustre effort. I think they should stop looking for excuses and start focusing on their game. Heck, kick Fletcher out while theyre at it!

Just to clarify, I am not Guyanese, I am from Hull, England.

So, Michael Vaughan's lads are bored are they?. Not eager to practise and give a good showing for the country they so proudly boast to want to play for?. And was that a typograhpical error Martin?."....Flintoff.....has been struggling with a stomach 'BIG' for much of the week...Too much beer?
Come on England, if it's too much trouble for you, resign and let some players in who WANT to play!.

  • 84.
  • At 10:46 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Glynne Williams wrote:

I suspect the reason the team were bored because they daren't now go anywhere in case some kind so-called fan denounces them to the thought police like some Madame Defarge. If they were enjoying themselves we'd be criticising them for that in any case.

Add to that the possibility of some journalist leaping out of the bushes in an attempt to put together yet more negative copy for the press at home to slaver over, I'm not surprised the team daren't sample the joys of Georgetown........

  • 85.
  • At 03:41 AM on 01 Apr 2007,
  • bernard hughes wrote:

Enland players in cricket and football are weak and really do not know how to win. Class does not win ,cooke,the lads do not win.Bearing down being totally focused and truly caring wins of course provided you have the talent, England has the talent but they have not a clue how to win. I am 60 now and I am talking about within my lifetime. 66 was an abberation when the gods smiled on hurst who was not fit to lace greaves boots. In cricket I must say england have been great in the days of trueman and underwood barrington edrich and boycott willis and laker. Football which is my favourite has shown me nothing internationally but ineptitude. I fear have consumed a little to much vino and I am rambling. To sum up England will lose the next two cricket matches badly. My heart goes out to english sports fans, the best in the world.
All the best Bernard

  • 86.
  • At 09:18 AM on 01 Apr 2007,
  • cricket mad wrote:

We won, so lets just be quiet and hope for a good performance v Sri Lanka using the energy weve saved up.
GET RID OF VAUGHAN AND BELL!!!!!!

  • 87.
  • At 12:14 AM on 02 Apr 2007,
  • mankyblue wrote:

We won didnt we ?
At this stage thats all that matters, keep winning and if its ugly so be it. Granted the top order need to get there fingers out but hey the games over, one more chance for Joyce and Bell then Straussy should be back in.
As for England nicking or taking the defecting the irish players it going to happen as we pay good money and play test cricket. If the lads want a test cricket career and not just a county career then thats what they need to do for now. Tho Ed Joyce was a tad suspicious in the game ... Joking .. kind of!!
On a football note tho the irish jack charlton teams were mostly english born and qualified by grandpearents and some of the team still do so you cant have it both ways, heck you qualified for the world cup 94 and we didnt .. if you want to be at the top of your game against the best in the world and are willing to go thru the rigmarole of qualification isolation let alone the greif you get from the fans of the country you left then good look to them.
To any S.A fans who read this cheers for K.P.
Anyway back to cricket , you can only beat the team thats put infront of you and we did that. Now we need to win the next game.
Come on England.

  • 88.
  • At 03:04 AM on 02 Apr 2007,
  • Mark McCoy wrote:

MB;The Irish soccer players, ALL fufilled criteria laid down by FIFA.....As in they all were & Are Irish Passport Holders.......unlike the 'manky' bunch that make up the current 'Tan-zanian' Cricket team!

Still, 'rules' are there to be 'exploited'..... here's to more mediocre Eng.sports teams......Most Scots & Irish, would drink to that!

  • 89.
  • At 08:50 AM on 02 Apr 2007,
  • Robert Cooke wrote:

Why on earth do we persist with this top three, surely something needs to be changed to take the pressure off the middle order? Get KP or Freddie up the order and play Lewis, please!!!

  • 90.
  • At 12:10 PM on 02 Apr 2007,
  • gabor wrote:

when do we play Andorra?

  • 91.
  • At 01:04 PM on 02 Apr 2007,
  • Franko wrote:

I dont get what all of the fuss is about here.

Ireland disserve a lot of credit for what they are doing at present, and while there are a few aussies and south africans in there, they qualify and they have played well.

As for England, there is no devine right to win games, we have not played well in the recent past (a few games against Aus aside), but as long as we are still in the tournament then anything can happen.

I am sure many of you wont be complaining if England have a mare in the final but scrape through by 1 run!

Personally, well done to Ireland for some great efforts, there is still a chance for more upset, and as for England, winning ugly is the first step to winning well, good luck to em!

This post is closed to new comments.

±«Óătv iD

±«Óătv navigation

±«Óătv © 2014 The ±«Óătv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.