Well, you can’t fault their sense of drama.
England, seemingly with one foot in the quarter-finals, again found themselves in a breathlessly tight finish and somehow contrived to allow
Bangladesh to inflict their second defeat of the campaign.
With the match at their mercy, England’s senior bowlers – and James Anderson in particular – allowed Bangladesh to recover from 169-8 to overhaul their target of 226 with an over to spare. After victory against a strong South Africa side, this was a crushingly disappointing performance from England.
Perhaps such an assessment undervalues the victors’ efforts. The Bangladesh ninth-wicket pair of Mahmudullah and Shaiful Islam batted with admirable calm and common sense to post an unbroken stand of 58 in 56 balls to clinch the victory. The stand, worth as many as the entire side made in their previous game, turned the game on its head and revived their nation’s World Cup ambitions.
The pair batted well and fully deserved their success. As, too, had Tamim Iqbal and Imrul Keyes in a first-wicket partnership that put their side well ahead of the required run-rate. And, as the Bangladesh team celebrated with unaffected joy, it was hard not to be pleased for them. It was, after all, only their second victory against England in 15 ODIs and their first at home. In the bigger picture, any encouragement to cricket in Bangladesh is surely to be celebrated.
But, goodness me, England did make it all a bit easy. Not only was much of their batting feckless, but much of their bowling lacked discipline or control. A tally of 23 wides tells its own story. In a low-scoring game, such profligacy is fatal.
There are some mitigating factors. A heavy dew made the ball hard to control in the second innings and this England side is shorn of two of its leading players.
But England would do well not to hide behind such excuses. Everything about this performance, from the selection, to the tactics to the execution, was muddled. Only by reassessing their entire strategy can they improve.
For a start, while Bangladesh selected four spinners for the sluggish pitch, England picked just Swann. Not, one suspects, because England’s management mis-read the conditions, but because they clearly have little faith in either Yardy or Tredwell. Wright, too, seems to be a passenger within the squad. England are, effectively, operating with a squad of 12 players.
If Yardy and Tredwell are not going to play in conditions such as this, it really does question the wisdom of selecting them in the first place. Surely the likes of Patel, Blackwell or Rashid would have offered more? Might the two Andys insistence that everyone buys into every aspect of their methodology actually be proving a bit inflexible? Their record has, to this point, been excellent, but perhaps the cracks are beginning to show. Perhaps the burden upon them is simply too heavy.
There were a couple of positives from an England perspective. Eoin Morgan, back in the side after injury, showed his worth with a sparky innings of 63 (72 balls, eight fours), while Shahzad conjured up a couple of absolute beauties to claim two of his three wickets. Dennis Lillee would have been proud of the way the ball pitched middle and hit the top of off stump. Bresnan, too, bowled with intelligence and skill, while only 16 from Swann’s last over spoilt his figures.
Trott, too, batted effectively. Some will claim that his 99-ball innings of 67 was too leisurely and created problems for England’s lower order. But, on an occasion where England were bowled out within their 50 overs, Trott’s measured approach was just what was required. In truth, England were probably not more than 20 runs below a decent total.
Other batsmen were far more culpable. Matt Prior, promoted back to the top of the order despite a record of failure in the position, dozily wandered out of his ground to be stumped, Ian Bell, as timid as new-born rabbit, prodded a simple catch to mid-wicket, while Strauss slashed impatiently to slip.
Though Morgan and Trott rebuilt with a stand of 109 in 22 overs but, when the former top-edged a sweep and the latter drove to long-off, England’s tail succumbed with dispiriting ease. Bopara slapped one to cover, Swann top-edged a reverse sweep and Collingwood – now demoted to eight in the order – ran himself out in a desperate attempt to compensate for his inability to hit the ball off the square.
Defeat throws England’s World Cup future into doubt. Should they beat West Indies next Thursday, they will certainly progress. But, without a settled batting line-up and with a bowling attack seemingly unable to maintain the basic disciplines, it is a game England supporters will approach with some trepidation.
The truth is that, after the remarkable planning and precision of the Ashes campaign, England are trusting to chance. It would be a major surprise if they are the team celebrating on April 2.
Tags: Bangladesh, cricket word cup 2011, England, Eoin Morgan, George Dobell, Imrul Keyes, James Anderson, Jonathan Trott, Mahmudullah, matt prior, Shaiful Islam, SPIN cricket magazine, Tamim Iqbal
These are meant to be golden days for English cricket. Fresh from
winning the World T20, they’ve also just defeated Australia in an ODI
series for the first time since the dawn of time. Give or take.
But, peer a little closer, and the stats aren’t so flattering. England
have now lost three of their last four ODIs. Their top order batting
appears brittle; their top-order bowling appears toothless and their
fielding has regressed since the excellent displays in the Caribbean.
Now it’s no disgrace to lose to Bangladesh. The visitors bowled very
well in Bristol and, on a pitch well suited to them, defended their
moderate total with admirable discipline. Besides, England were the
only major team they hadn’t yet beaten. This was bound to happen
sooner or later.
There are mitigating factors, too. England went into the game without
Swann and Pietersen, while Bell was unable to bat in any meaningful
sense of the word and Collingwood was dismissed by a terrible umpiring
decision.
But no-one should hide behind those issues. Because England also
benefited from some umpiring decisions (Collingwood should have been
given out, caught behind, first ball) and, by delivering 12 wides and
three no-balls, their bowlers proved generous to a fault.
Many of the top-order batsmen also played a large part in their own downfalls: Yardy’s shot, a hoick across the line, was especially ugly, but
Kieswetter’s loose drive, Morgan’s flick across the line and Strauss’
edged steer were also far from pretty.
Even more worryingly, their two senior bowlers – Broad and Anderson -
conceded 106 in 19 overs, while serious questions are starting to be
asked about the place of Luke Wright in this side. How on earth does
he keep a player as good as Bopara on the sidelines?
Andrew Strauss was not looking for excuses, however. Describing
England’s fielding as “poor” and their batting as “distinctly poor”,
he admitted they “only have ourselves to blame.”
“We were 10-14%, maybe even 20%, off where we should have been,” he
said. “But fair play to Bell and Trott, who have come into the side in
the last couple of games and shown the rest of us what to do. But we
can’t rely on one batsmen all the time.
“But I don’t want to show Bangladesh any disrespect,” he continued.
“They were outstanding. They played exceptionally well and they
deserved their victory.”
And what of Trott? Some will maintain he is one-paced and selfish. But
he now has three half-centuries in his last four ODI innings. And, in
a team where the top-order looks brittle, he could be just the man to
add steel to the batting.
