I’m not sure why England insist on naming their team two days before the start of each Test. Of course players like clarity about whether they are going to play and this provides it, but the opposition also likes clarity about which players they are going to face and it provides that as well.
It feels like bravado, which might not be a bad thing, and to stop doing it mid-series would look like a loss of confidence. But there were no surprises in the side they have picked for another must-win game.
Mark Wood and Chris Woakes played well enough at Headingley to be undroppable. Ollie Robinson missed most of that Test after experiencing a back spasm and though he says he is fully fit I would be nervous about retaining him given the importance of the occasion, a feeling the selectors obviously shared.
There is again no place for Josh Tongue, who impressed big time at Lord’s. On their performances it would be difficult to argue that Jimmy Anderson deserves to be in the team ahead of him, but I feel Anderson will rise to the occasion on his home ground and he has certainly earned the opportunity to try.
There is sometimes reverse swing to be found there, which Anderson is an expert in bowling, and he and Stuart Broad can provide control of the run rate in case other bowlers prove expensive.
Moeen Ali’s place at No 3 is now official, though given what happened to Harry Brook at Headingley you can’t be sure how long it will last. I was shocked when I saw Moeen walk out first drop in England’s second innings in Leeds. When you start the match with one person at No 3 then you change your mind and promote someone who has been retired for two years and batted down the order when he did play, it just looks bizarre.
The coaches I worked with at international level – Andy Flower, Trevor Bayliss, Paul Farbrace, Peter Moores – all prided themselves on their planning. There are some things you can’t control, but you do the very best that you can. Throwing Moeen up there looked a bit desperate.
England seem to be getting away with these left-field things because somehow their belief overrides the chaos they are creating. It is certainly fun to watch, but also creates plenty of questions.
Where is the long-term planning? They seemed to have nothing in place when they lost their spinner, Jack Leach, at the start of the summer and they had no plan in place when they lost Ollie Pope, their favoured No 3, a few weeks later. It turns out the new spinner and the new No 3 they needed was the same person – who hadn’t played red-ball cricket for nearly two years and whose brief flirtation with batting at three in Tests ended after five innings five years ago. Sometimes it is hard to take this team seriously.
I completely understand why they decided to shelve the experiment with playing Brook at three, but Joe Root is one of the best players in the world and the one batter with the technique and experience to thrive there. With him at three and Moeen at seven England’s batting would have a more solid look about it and a more orthodox appearance. I remember a period when I was in the England team when we were searching for a No 3, while Robin Smith was No 1 in the world and coming in at No 5 or No 6. Sometimes senior players have to step up.
England must win to keep the series alive and they rose to the occasion under similar pressure to win a dramatic but error-strewn encounter at Headingley. There was some box office cricket – that Wood spell on the opening day and a sensational innings from Mitchell Marsh – but it was frenetic, adrenaline-fuelled and marked by individual mistakes, which made for some great entertainment.
Batters talk about deliberately putting pressure back on a bowler, which sounds like a nice idea but seems to involve some really poor decision-making. Instead of trusting their defence and their temperament to bat a bit of time, to demonstrate the cricketing virtues of being calm at the crease, absorbing pressure, building a partnership, they throw their bat at width or anything full in the name of putting pressure on the bowler. And it is certainly not just England who are guilty of it.
Australia looked rattled by England’s approach and by another noisy, hostile crowd. The wickets of Marnus Labuschagne and Steve Smith in the second innings were pivotal and not enough has been made of those dismissals. England were a seamer down, there were no demons in the pitch and in series gone by those two batters would have been relentless against Moeen’s off-spin. But Labuschagne was caught at deep square-leg slog-sweeping and Smith clipped to midwicket. Once those two wickets fell England became strong favourites to win the game.
Before the series began they were probably the most feared members of Australia’s batting lineup but three matches in, Smith, despite scoring a century at Lord’s, is averaging 31.66 and Labuschagne 24. Smith’s record shows he is highly likely to bounce back, but the manner of Labuschagne’s dismissals will be a real concern. He seems to be getting a long way outside the line of off stump and people who do that end up playing at balls they could leave and nicking off. David Warner is having a similar problem, particularly against Broad.
Moeen generously said those two wickets were down to Wood bowling with such quality and hostility from the other end, allowing him to benefit from the batters feeling they had no choice but to score off him. There is no doubt bowlers bowl in partnership and Wood seemed to really unsettle Australia. The idea that bowling tightly at both ends can pay off isn’t new. It’s also not very Bazball.
In his initial selection, his promotion up the batting order and his performances, it feels like Moeen demonstrates a gradual unravelling of this England team’s approach – but they still won at Headingley, so bring on Old Trafford.
