Ashes 2013: England's Glass Ceiling

England’s Test match and series victories normally involve the steady strangulation of their opposition —it’s slow, painful and methodical. 

There was something strangely appropriate therefore about the PA announcement that echoed around the almost empty Old Trafford ground, that confirmed the third Ashes Test had been abandoned and England had retained the precious urn. England fans will of course take Ashes retention however it comes, but it was undeniably anti-climactic in its denouement.

With their goal of retaining the Ashes achieved, Andy Flower and his men should now begin to look more broadly to the future. Seven Tests against Australia are still to come, affording England scope for long-term planning and progress. 

England’s method and attention to detail are well-documented. They have an enormous staff with every possible area of expertise manned. Many of their decisions are based in statistics and analysis. Their use of the DRS is well thought through. Their analysts probably know how many hair products Shane Watson uses, they have designated ball shiners etc etc etc.

The great benefit and strength of England’s method is that their range of performances between the awful and the extraordinary have been narrowed. England have become consistently consistent. They disassemble their opponents. Erode them. Corrode them. Bore them. They dare to be dull. Rarely do they catastrophically fail, and rarely do the totally dominate. 

However, paradoxically the great weakness of England’s method is that it discourages panache and flair, quashes individuality and monotonizes performance. Therefore, England’s computer-like mentality is prone to malfunctioning when faced with two evils: excellence and positivity. 

Genuine cricketing brilliance can overcome England’s blueprint for victory. A wizard spinner, a ferocious paceman, an effortlessly elegant batsman or a steadfastly stonewalling batsman; such players are the key to unlocking England’s winning code. Pakistan did it in early 2012. South Africa did it last summer. India briefly threatened to do it in Ahmedabad. 

Positivity can also overcome England’s blueprint. A Virender Sehwag counter-attack, a Hashim Amla onslaught or a 10th wicket partnership. The result is the same. England have a tendency to suddenly appear lost. “Sehwag isn’t meant to score at 6 runs an over against Jimmy!” “We didn’t have tapes of Amla reverse sweeping spinners boss?” “Our analysts have never seen Ashton Agar?!”

Australia played the majority of the third Test with care and caution, gradually moving themselves into a position of strength. A position in which they could not lose. Ironically their crescendo of pressure and runs ensured they beat England at their own game. Then, on day five, with ten wickets needed for victory, Australia attacked. 

The 331 runs required for victory was merely nominal, rendering England’s run chase neutered before a ball was bowled, as well as affording Michael Clarke the luxury of being able to set attacking fields and bowlers bowl attacking lines. 

England responded to the rare situation of being set up and played from ball one. They responded with their backs firmly against the wall, in the only way they really know how to: with rigorous defense. England’s batsmen, introverted at the best of times, as they so often are in such situations, were sucked into a vortex of negativity. 

Kevin Pietersen, one of the beautiful duckling's (Ian Bell is the other) in a team of ugly ducklings, was the only player who attempted to impose himself on Australia. His fourth ball, dug in short by Ryan Harris was pulled for four with utter disdain. 

However, Pietersen’s gusto failed to prevent England’s slide when he was controversially given out caught behind and one can confidently predict that had the rain not intervened, England fans would’ve been subjected to the cricket equivalent of Sir Alex Ferguson’s “squeaky bum time.”

Australia certainly bowled well. Some bowlers try to hit the top of off stump every ball—Australia didn’t do that in England’s short second innings. They bowled with hostility and aggression, Peter Siddle in particular managed to extract life from a pitch that seemed lifeless for most of the Test. Ryan Harris too, not for the first time, and if he can stay fit not for the last, was furiously probing. Siddle and Harris’ length visibly troubled the English batsmen who appeared reluctant to commit onto the front foot. 

Retaining the Ashes is undoubtedly a notable achievement, but Australia are far from the force they once were. Furthermore, the battle for the urn does appear to take on strangely disproportionate importance with regards to the standing of the team and players. 

England have long maintained that their ultimate aim is to return to the top of the Test rankings. Whilst results in recent months have not been poor, their method doesn’t give off the aura of a team who can make the ascent any time soon. 

Admittedly the forecasted rain may have to an extent dictated England’s approach on day five, but was their timidity representative of a team who have a) the ability to be the world’s best side? and b) the belief they can become so? The answer is a resounding no. 

Therein lies the problem. Perhaps England’s method has created a glass ceiling for the team’s success. The characteristics of truly great teams are more than just reliability, consistency and caution. Great teams embody tenacity and zing. 

England’s method is by no means wrong. In fact there’s an argument to be made that all international teams, excluding South Africa, would trade their players and game-plan for England’s method right now. 

Circumspection and caution, analysis and plans, and fitness and drills have made England a very good international cricket team. Not great. But good. They need not abandon this philosophy but merely refine it. Perhaps at times they need to relax slightly, loosen up and let their hair down. Perhaps they have to acknowledge that their greatest strength is also their greatest weakness. 

England dare to be dull. It’s time they dared to dare.

England’s Test match and series victories normally involve the steady strangulation of their opposition’s hopes - it’s slow, painful and methodical. 

 

There was something strangely appropriate therefore about the PA announcement that echoed around the almost empty Old Trafford ground, that confirmed the third Ashes Test had been abandoned and England had retained the precious urn. England fans will of course take Ashes retention however it comes, but it was an undeniably anti-climactic moment.

 

With their primary stated aim of retaining the Ashes achieved, Andy Flower and his men should now begin to look more broadly to the future. Seven Tests against Australia are still to come, affording England scope for long-term planning and progress. 

 

England’s method and its attention to detail is well-documented. They have an enormous back-room staff with every possible area of expertise manned. Many of their on and off field decisions are based in statistics and analysis. Their use of the DRS is well thought through, their analysts probably know how many hair products Shane Watson uses, they have designated ball shiners etc etc etc.

 

The great benefit and strength of England’s method is that their range of performances between the awful and the extraordinary have been narrowed. England have become consistently consistent. They disassemble their opponents. Erode them. Corrode them. Bore them. They dare to be dull. Rarely to they catastrophically fail, and rarely do the totally dominate. 

 

However, the great weakness of England’s method is that it discourages panache and flair, quashes individuality and monotonizes performance. Therefore, England’s computer-like mentality is prone to malfunctioning when faced with two evils: excellence and positivity. 

 

Genuine cricketing brilliance can overcome England’s blueprint for victory. A wizard spinner, a ferocious paceman, an effortlessly elegant batsman, a steadfastly stonewalling batsman; such players are the key to unlocking England’s winning code. Pakistan did it in early 2012. South Africa did it last summer. India briefly threatened to do it in Ahmedabad. 

 

Positivity can also overcome England’s blueprint. A Virender Sehwag counter-attack, a Hashim Amla onslaught on Graeme Swann or a tenth wicket partnership. The result is the same. England have a tendency to suddenly appear lost. “Sehwag isn’t meant to score at 6 runs an over against Jimmy!” “We didn’t have tapes of Amla reverse sweeping spinners boss?” “Our analysts have never seen Ashton Agar?!”

 

Australia played the majority of the third Test with care and caution, gradually moving themselves into a position of strength. A position in which they could not lose. Ironically their crescendo of pressure and runs ensured they beat England at their own game. Then, on day five, with ten wickets needed for victory, Australia attacked. 

 

The 331 runs required for victory was merely nominal, rendering England’s run chase neutered before a ball was bowled, as well as affording Michael Clarke the luxury of being able to set attacking fields and bowlers bowl attacking lines. 

 

England responded to this rare situation of being setup and played from ball one, and now with their backs firmly against the wall, in the only way they really know how to: rigorous defense. England’s batsmen, introverted at the best of times, as they so often are in such situations, were sucked into a vortex of negativity. 

 

Kevin Pietersen, the beautiful duckling in a team of largely ugly ducklings, was the only player who attempted to impose himself on Australia. His fourth ball, dug in short by Ryan Harris was pulled for four with utter disdain. 

 

Almost everything Kevin Pietersen does is immensely fascinating: his hundreds, his press conferences, his controversies, his failures, and on day five at Old Trafford it was his failure that caught the headlines. The manner of the dismissal, another DRS controversy, was the issue that got everyone talking, but his alarming habit to struggle immediately after a big score continues. A flaw which opens another window into the mind of Pietersen. 

 

Andrew Strauss, writing in The Sunday Times about Pietersen prior to the series said “Pietersen is at his most vulnerable when he has succeeded in proving himself.” This is a revealing statement; not merely because Strauss also wrote that Pietersen was at his most dangerous when he needed to prove himself. 

 

In the first innings Pietersen’s century did just that, in the second innings he failed to make a substantial score. This pattern is not unfamiliar. His scores in the second innings having registered a hundred in the first are: 42, 13, 16, 2, 24, 13, 1, 42*, 12 and 8. 

 

Anyhow, Pietersen’s gusto failed to prevent England’s slide and one can confidently predict that had the rain not intervened England fans would’ve been subjected to the cricket equivalent of Sir Alex Ferguson’s “squeaky bum time.”

 

Australia certainly bowled well. Some bowlers try to hit the top of off stump every ball - Australia didn’t do that in England’s short second innings. They bowled with hostility and aggression, Peter Siddle in particular managed to extract life from a pitch that seemed lifeless for most of the Test. Ryan Harris too, not for the first time, and if he can stay fit it not for the last, was furiously probing. Siddle and Harris’ length visibly troubled the English batsmen who appeared reluctant to commit onto the front foot. 

 

Retaining the Ashes is undoubtedly a notable achievement, but Australia are far from the force they once were and the battle for the little urn does appear to strangely take on disproportionate importance with regards to the standing of the team and players. 

 

England’s stated aim is to return to the top of the Test rankings. Whilst results in recent months have not been poor, their method doesn’t give off the aura of a team who can make the ascent any time soon. 

 

Admittedly the rain may have, to an extent, dictated England’s approach on day five, but was their timidity representative of a side who have a) the ability to be the world’s best side? and b) the belief they can become so? The answer is a resounding no. 

 

Therein lies the problem. Perhaps England’s method has created a glass ceiling for the team’s success. The characteristics of truly great teams are more than just reliability, consistency and caution, great teams embody tenacity and daring, elan and zing. 

 

England’s method is by no means wrong. In fact there’s an argument to be made that all international teams, excluding South Africa would trade their players and game plan for England’s right now. 

 

Circumspection and caution, analysis and plans, fitness and drills have made England a very good international cricket team. Not great. But good. They need not abandon this philosophy but merely refine it. Perhaps at times they need to relax slightly, loosen up and let their hair down. Perhaps they have to acknowledge that their greatest strength is also their greatest weakness. 

 

England dare to be dull. It’s time they dared to dream.