Turning Fortunes: England's Cricketers in Pakistan
Created | Updated Dec 8, 2005
So after the storm, the calm. Just as the rugby team's rapid comedown after winning the World Cup and the footballers' failure to build on the nearly days of Euro '96, England's cricketers have disappointed in Pakistan. Less than three months after the nail-biting Ashes series that re-ignited a nation's faltering belief in the national side, the subcontinent's turning pitches have been England's undoing. The disappointment of losing their first Test series since losing 1-0 in Sri Lanka in 2003 was compounded by the result of the final Test — a hammering by an innings and 100 runs in Lahore. England had won their last six series1 and defeat was something new to this young side.
The big question: is this the end of England's renaissance? We'll look at the factors in more detail here.
The Opposition
Pakistan have always been a tough side to break down, especially at home. The subcontinental pitches have always suited their bowlers — it matters little whether Malik, Kaneria or even Afridi has the ball in their hand. At least one is likely to come up with some unplayable turn. Add to this the man reputed to be the world's fastest bowler, Shoaib Akhtar, and you have a pace attack to trouble the best in the world.
Their strength is not necessarily limited to the bowling, either. Captain Inzaman-ul-Haq is a man you'd rather see out than in, capable of building a massive score without flaw and with a supporting cast of the ability of a Salman Butt or Mohammad Yousef, they are unlikely to be a side that will be bowled out cheaply.
England
Of course, the opponents are not the only team in the game. England's young side were particularly inexperienced, with only five survivors from Nasser Hussain's winning team in 2000, and the pressures of playing on turning Asian pitches cannot be underestimated. Too often, the batsmen were out playing shot square of the wicket, and it was notable that those who prospered (particularly the technical Ian Bell and, in the final Test, Paul Collingwood) tended to play straight and nudge the ball around for singles rather than loft the ball square. Naïveté was a large part of the batsmen's undoing.
It is more likely, however, that England's lack of a true quality spinner was their undoing. Such a statement is not intended to be disrespectful to the honourable Ashley Giles, who bowled through the series with a hip injury that eventually ruled him out of the final Test, or to Shaun Udal, for whom a Test call-up was long overdue at the age of 36. But neither made any great impact in Pakistan, as was to be expected; Giles is not an aggressive wicket taker and for Udal the step up in class was always going to be difficult to make. Coach Duncan Fletcher's key target over the next two years must be to find a spinner who can take wickets.
The Toss
The idea that the toss of a coin can so often decide the fate of a match must seem a preposterous suggestion to non-cricket fans. But the idea of facing Pakistan's leg spinners on the fifth day of a match, when the pitch is dry and turning, is every batsman's nightmare. Batting first on the subcontinent is usually key. England lost the toss in the first two Tests and this ultimately may have proven as costly as the often wasteful shots that cost key wickets. In Multan, England lost a game chasing a modest total of 197 and the series could have been over early but for the heroics of Giles and Geriant Jones in Faisalabad. Pakistan showed in the final Test how to play batting second; by batting with watchfulness and composure, a first innings lead was secured.
Other Factors
Could they? Should they? Some aspects of the tour came under some scrutiny:
The absence of Michael Vaughan due to injury in the first Test probably had an impact on the series. Without his inspiration and intelligent field settings, England often looked lost for ideas, and defeat in the first Test meant that England were always looking to make up ground in such a short series.
A side unaccustomed to Pakistani conditions and pitches were allowed just two three-day games in which to acclimatise. For a young team, this seemed to be a glaring mistake. Players need rest, certainly, but to deny bowlers overs and batsmen time in the middle in an alien environment smacks of complacency.
Is it wise to allow an opening batsman — Andrew Strauss — to return home, even for the birth of his child, with the series at stake? Imagine Warne, Lara or Tendulkar doing the same. They wouldn't.
How deep is your squad? There was very little genuine competition for places on the tour. The likes of James Anderson and Liam Plunkett were never likely to challenge England's bowlers for places and — barring injury — Matt Prior and Collingwood were unlikely to start any Test from the start.
Doubts over some aspects of the team — the middle order's lack of a 'nudger', the wicketkeeping-batting duality of Jones and the over-reliance on Flintoff's bowling — certainly came to the fore.
Quite simply, England lost the few good positions they had, were rolled over too easily at critical times and failed to make inroads when they were behind in the game. The anticipated fightbacks were few and immodest. Having squandered a good position after three days in Multan, England never really recovered.
Harsh?
Yes.
Although never in with a shout after the first Test, England were not disgraced. Pakistan were a new challenge in an alien environment; this was hardly old fallibilities coming to the fore. The key players rarely showed, but the emergence of Bell and Collingwood, both of whom played some wonderful cricket while their senior partners looked befuddled, must give hope for the future. England looked vulnerable, lost at times; but with reflection, this series must be one that gives pause for thought for the future. The spring tour of India must surely be the one that gives a true indication of England's future prospects.
