When a campaign has been as poor as England’s in this 50-over World Cup the leadership has to come under the microscope. Jos Buttler said there is “no golden egg” after the defeat to Sri Lanka, while Matthew Mott said he didn’t have the answers. Of course, captains and head coaches have to be canny when speaking to the media but all the same, answers like these are never a good look.
England have not done the basics well in this campaign, either with the ball or building partnerships with the bat to then ask questions of their opponents. Before the game that effectively sealed their fate we had a bullish Moeen Ali saying they would look to give it a crack, which sounded to me like they would blaze away and hope to find some form. But 50-over cricket is not that simple, you need much more adaptability and you only have to look back to 2019 as a good example. It seems strange they have forgotten that four years on.
In fact, look around the best sides in this tournament: India, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. They generally have a blend of classical batters in the top order and X-factor lower down, with a nuanced approach of playing to strengths, not a one-size-fits-all mentality with ever-changing selection. India is a country where you have to be so flexible, with the climate and surfaces varying greatly from match to match. A simple go hard or go home approach doesn’t work and has only ended up with the latter for England.
I also genuinely can’t remember seeing a side with this many proven world-class performers out of form at the same time. Given there were eight World Cup winners in the team that lost to Sri Lanka, and all 11 were above the age of 30, it is fair to ask questions about the dynamic in the dressing room. With seniority comes responsibility and accountability and in this instance they have got it horribly wrong.
This is not a skill issue. These players have known the cauldron of international cricket long enough and won trophies along the way. So looking from the outside, it is legitimate to ask whether some sort of comfort zone has set in; whether there was a complacency that things will be all right on the night. One per cent off in terms of that hunger and desire to improve every day and you’re going to struggle – which is ultimately what they have done.
At Surrey I remember after the 2003 season, when we won the T20 Cup, the 40-over National League and finished third in the County Championship after winning it the season before. Adam Hollioake stepped down as captain and we had a lot of senior players who lost a bit of their edge; a drop-off in intensity as regards focus and training, with guys relying solely on their experience in the middle. Has this England team gone the same way?
Only the players themselves will know the answer but this is where you go back to the leadership. Captains and head coaches are paid the big bucks to spot these trends; to read the group and recognise when to put an arm round a player or whether to say this really isn’t good enough. You don’t want the hairdryer to come out all the time in pressure situations as you will very quickly lose players. But, equally, there are still times you have to pull senior players aside for a chat and ask for a bit more from them.
Does Buttler have it in him to have a strong, honest word with guys he has played with and known for so long? It’s very much the thing to have relaxed atmospheres these days but I’m not sure the team that rose from the depths of 2015 to lifting the trophy in 2019 was that relaxed under Eoin Morgan. There was a desire to be aggressive and a degree of freedom, sure, but also a ruthlessness underpinning it. After reaching No 1 in the rankings they also embraced the favourites’ tag before that World Cup, whereas Buttler has looked to play down England’s status as defending champions.
But then ever since that World Cup the ECB has forced through the Hundred and relegated the 50-over competition to a sideshow. That’s not pinning England’s performance on this – there was enough experience in the squad picked to fare better than they have – but it is not a total red herring either. It’s a fact. A player such as Harry Brook, say, has an excellent first-class record and has travelled the world playing T20, yet seems to lack a 50-over tempo.
Liam Livingstone is another. He seems so unsure how to construct an ODI innings, probably because all his cricket – in training and on the field – has been based around clearing that front leg and trying to whop it out of the ground. The reason why the 50-over format is so great – and why I do fear something will be lost if it does become extinct – is because it asks so much more than that. Striking that balance of risk and reward is far more important than in T20 cricket, where there is an imperative to go hard.
Virat Kohli is a good example – the best in fact – he is able to score at a high rate with low risk because his timing and placement is so good. An in-form Joe Root is the same. Buttler is a world-class player but in this tournament he has been nowhere. He has tried to manufacture shots to good deliveries. He got a good ball against Afghanistan but was so off balance, playing around it. Against Sri Lanka he was trying to drive a ball he was nowhere near to, when it was better off dropping the bat with soft hands for a single.
In the modern English dressing room this is seen as backing off; among the best teams, it’s still called respecting a good ball. England have also sent down fewer of these, going to variations sooner and perhaps forgetting another difference with T20. Chris Woakes, who has had a disappointing tournament, actually looked really good by the end against Sri Lanka, with a tight off-stump line to a split field. But by then it was too late.
It was also pretty extraordinary that contract talks were going on during a World Cup campaign. Again, this is not to pin their poor showing on this, but it can’t have helped.
