England cricketers. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

England have been a poor one-day side in cricket for years – now they're abject

If this kind of performance is what you get after six months of dedicated planning, then less planning sounds good to me.

This was a salutary defeat. This, surely, is the end for psychobabble and over-professionalism, a full stop to mark the end of overcoaching and joylessly prescriptive planning. It is time for England’s cricketers to put bat to ball, to react to the situation and not genuflect to the tactics manual. It is time to play once again. If this is what you get after six months of dedicated planning, then less planning sounds good to me.

Here is one possible summary of this disastrous World Cup: “They found ever more stones to upturn, each less relevant than the last. Lauded for their professionalism, they snuffed out the last glimpses of play (from a game, let’s remember) . . . The resulting atmosphere: anxious, dutiful, earnest, fearful and highly professional. Too little in evidence: fun, naturalness, mischief, adventure, lightness, wit and maverick independence.”

Only it was written in prospect, not retrospect – by me, in this very space, 13 months ago. Since then, the same script has played out in full. Now, please, for the change.

New errors have been added, it is true. When England sacked Alastair Cook as one-day captain at the eleventh hour, it was almost universally praised as the right decision. I disagreed. There is a time when you’ve thrown your lot in with someone, and for this World Cup England had done that with Cook.

In seeking to avoid one problem – Cook’s batting form – they ended up creating two problems. The discarded Cook, back at home, is deeply hurt. Eoin Morgan, adrift in totally uncharted waters as captain, may end up feeling he has been used. The adjectives “streetwise” and “positive” were hopeful to the point of neglectful naivety. If opting for Morgan was a sop to media pressure, it was disgraceful.

Selection was a shambles. On the eve of the opening game, they abandoned one of the few things that was working – the form of James Taylor at number three. Instead, Gary Ballance was plucked from the subs’ bench. He is now needlessly scarred by having played in an ill-fated World Cup for which he had little preparation.

It is impossible not to feel sorry for Morgan, especially as his native Ireland have played much better than England at the World Cup. Morgan, like Ed Joyce before him, pursued a career as an England player because Ireland are held back by a lack of fixtures and opportunities. Watching a revitalised Joyce – now back in Irish green – chalk up elegant runs for his home team, it’s obvious how deeply he cares about the cricketing culture that produced him. You now wonder how Morgan, who may be tempted by the life of a roving Twenty20 specialist, will react to this bruising World Cup experience.

Having invented T20, England have engineered a situation where they squandered the advantages of being the pioneer. The best T20 leagues are the Indian Premier League and Australia’s Big Bash League. It is simply impossible to produce cricket at that level in a league of 18 counties – the talent is diluted too weakly. Everyone knows this is a fact. When we shared a dressing room at Middlesex in 2008, I saw Morgan shake his head in disbelief at the ECB’s refusal to set a franchise-based T20 league. He was right.

There is a brain drain in English cricket. The better thinkers rarely return to the game, whether as coaches or as administrators. After the defeat, viewers watched Andrew Strauss, Mike Atherton and Nasser Hussain, three thoughtful former England captains, dissect the performance. Forgive my hypocrisy, but it seems a shame that the media are almost universally considered far more attractive than the coalface.

The pull of television is compounded by the push of the county grind. Top Australian ex-players such as Justin Langer, Stuart Law and Darren Lehmann have all recently coached at state level in Australia. It is much rarer for people of such distinction to enter coaching in county cricket. The prospect of a never-ending road trip around 18 counties works against recruiting top talent. When Peter Moores was reappointed as England coach a year ago, the striking feature was the unspectacular quality of the shortlist. Moores is a decent, hard-working enthusiast, probably the best of his type. It remains very unclear that his type is good enough.

There is a saying in the military that generals are helplessly conditioned to fight the previous war. In the same way, English cricket is dangerously obsessed with the Ashes. That is because between 1986 and 2005 we never won an Ashes series. Disappointment produced myopia. The Ashes remains a money-spinner and a crowd-pleaser, but it cannot prop up our whole game for ever. One-day cricket is treated like an inferior side issue. The Ashes, like all great brands, will mask the underlying cultural decline for a long time but it can’t bail out the whole English game indefinitely.

To some extent, coaches and captains, tactics and selection, are all beside the point. England have been a poor one-day team for years. They have remained poor. All that has happened is, the rest of the cricketing world has evolved, becoming more creative, expressive, exuberant and attacking. Plodding England used to be able to hang around, never leading at one-day cricket but just about within reach. No longer. The question is not how we can compete with Australia and New Zealand (out of sight) but how we might learn from Bangladesh. It is a galling fact that the fastest and most exciting bowler on Monday was Bangladeshi.

Cricket’s place in the wider sporting culture is under grave threat. There is no cricket on free-to-air television; there is a leadership deficit, too many tracksuited clichés, a lack of critical thinking and independent thought. England are still, thanks to satellite television, cash-rich. By every other measure, they are looking bankrupt. 

Ed Smith is a journalist and author, most recently of Luck. He is a former professional cricketer and played for both Middlesex and England.

This article first appeared in the 13 March 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Israel's Next War

Lindsey Parnaby / Getty
Show Hide image

The public like radical policies, but they aren't so keen on radical politicians

Around the world, support for genuinely revolutionary ideas is strong, but in the UK at least, there's less enthusiasm for the people promising them.

You’re probably a getting a little bored of the litany of talking head statistics: trust in elected officials, parliament, the justice system and even democracy itself has been falling steadily for years and is at record lows. Maybe you’ve seen that graph that shows how people born after 1980 are significantly less likely than those born in 1960 to think that living in a democracy is ‘essential’. You’ve possibly heard of the ‘Pasokification’ of the centre-left, so-named the collapse of the once dominant Greek social democratic party Pasok, a technique being aggressively pursued by other centre-left parties in Europe to great effect.    

And so, goes the logic, there is a great appetite for something different, something new. It’s true! The space into which Trump et al barged leaves plenty of room for others: Beppe Grillo in Italy, Spanish Podemos, Bernie Sanders, Jean Luc Melanchon, and many more to come.

In my new book Radicals I followed movements and ideas that in many cases make someone like Jeremy Corbyn seem positively pedestrian: people who want to dismantle the nation state entirely, use technology to live forever, go off grid. All these ideas are finding fertile ground with the frustrated, disillusioned, and idealistic. The challenges of coming down the line – forces of climate change, technological change, fiscal crunch, mass movements of people – will demand new types of political ideas. Radical, outsider thinking is back, and this does, in theory at least, offer a chink of light for Corbyn’s Labour.

Polling last week found pretty surprising levels of support for many of his ideas. A big tax on high earners, nationalising the railways, banning zero hours contracts and upping the minimum wage are all popular. Support for renewable energy is at an all-time high. According to a recent YouGov poll, Brits actually prefer socialism to capitalism, a sentiment most strongly held among younger people.

There are others ideas too, which Corbyn is probably less likely to go for. Stopping benefits entirely for people who refuse to accept an offer of employment is hugely popular, and in one recent poll over half of respondents would be happy with a total ban on all immigration for the next two years. Around half the public now consistently want marijuana legalised, a number that will surely swell as US states with licenced pot vendors start showing off their dazzling tax returns.

The BNP effect used to refer to the problem the far-right had with selling their ideas. Some of their policies were extremely popular with the public, until associated with the BNP. It seems as though the same problem is now afflicting the Labour brand. It’s not the radical ideas – there is now a genuine appetite for those who think differently – that’s the problem, it’s the person who’s tasked with delivering them, and not enough people think Corbyn can or should. The ideal politician for the UK today is quite possibly someone who is bold enough to have genuinely radical proposals and ideas, and yet appears extremely moderate, sensible and centrist in character and temperament. Perhaps some blend of Blair and Corbyn. Sounds like an oxymoron doesn’t it? But this is politics, 2017. Anything is possible.

Jamie Bartlett is the head of the Violence and Extremism Programme and the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at Demos.

0800 7318496