I don't like Cricket

Monty Panacea?

You've got to love the great British media and assembled voices of cricket punditry. We've already had the not-playing-Monty-backlash and now some of the papers are having a Monty backlash-backlash, arguing that no one player would have made a difference to the results of the previous Tests.

However as far as I'm concerned this misses the point. No one can seriously think that Monty would have single-handedly changed the course of those games. The point was that ditching him and going for the conservative and 'safe' option of Giles pretty much gave the psychological advantage to the Aussies. It sent them a message that we were much less concerned with winning games than we were with not losing them. Is it any wonder therefore that on that fateful last morning in Adelaide the England team's mindset was 'let's get a draw' while the Aussies were thinking 'how can we win?'

Caution has been the watchword for England's selection policy. Saj Mahmood was ditched in favour of Jimmy Anderson because, according to Duncan Fletcher, 'we know what we can get out of Jimmy on a day-to-day basis'. In other words Jimmy was the 'safer' option. But hold on, if the ball isn't swinging isn't Matthew Hoggard the one who is expected to keep one end tight? And what about Giles? Isn't his role in the England team one of containment? How many containing bowlers do we need?

Choosing Panesar and Mahmood would have been the bold option, but the closest England have come to Bold of late was when the kits where washed before they left for the tour. I don't mind us losing. I do mind us rolling over without a fight, which has been the case up till now.

posted by cov @ 10:01 pm