Root at a crossroads

Just over a year ago, with the Ashes imminent, there was some sensible talk (amongst all the trash) about the battle of the captains. Joe Root was still relatively new to the job, and even if he seemed to take responsibility in his stride it was widely thought that he was yet to really stamp his personality on the side.  Steve Smith, his opposite number, was more established, with less focus on his actual captaincy skills but rather on just how England were going to get him out. At the time I mused that the captaincy issue was a smokescreen, yes Smith and Root was the key battle but not one that would be decided by a moment of Brearley-like inspiration or a quirky Vaughan-esque field setting. No, this would be a battle of runs, and for England to stand any chance they needed a whole stack. In particular they need at least 500 including a couple of meaningful centuries, from their one world class batsman, their captain.  Root finished with 378 runs and a top score of 83. Smith made 687 with 3 hundreds including a best of 239. Like the series itself, it was barely a contest. 

Since then it's fair to say that Root and Smith lives have taken different courses, certainly in the court of public opinion. Smith is still serving his 12 month ban for failing to prevent two idiots carrying out an act so stupid even Boris Johnson wouldn't have backed it; meanwhile Root is feted as a sort of cross between Gandhi, Rosa Parks and Russell Brand for failing to respond like an idiot to a crass, but off the cuff remark.

Like the captaincy argument, this is just another entertaining side-show.  Cricket hasn't changed since Smith was banned. It's still all about runs and wickets. And England are still as dependant on Root's runs as they ever were, possibly even more so; as will Australia be when Smith returns. Root can be as upstanding a member of society as he likes but if he doesn't start batting to his potential, then he is not doing his primary job - influencing matches and series from the start in the manner of a world class batsman. Second innings hundreds in dead rubbers are nice for the average but little good for the team.

There is some mitigation. With England's next best players currently consigned to the 6 and 7 slots, Root is in effect carrying the entire top 5. Clearly this is a lot to ask, probably too much. A couple of things could help him. Firstly another re-think of Jonny Bairstow's batting position. Having him at 5, possibly interchangeably with Ben Stokes depending on workload, would give the top order a solider look. Secondly, a recall for Ian Bell to bat at 3. He may not be the player he was but if he is properly motivated he is still streets ahead of the other options.

But the buck still stops with the captain. England don't need just the old Root back they need a new, improved version. Nasser Hussain reckons that he has another level in him. I agree, but to get there he needs to rethink his approach. There is a still a boyish carefreeness to his batting. It has  served him well at times and made him a delightful player to watch. He likes to score, to put bat to ball early on, and put pressure on opposition bowlers. And all done with a smile on his face.

Nevertheless Root's game, along with the majority of the world's batsman, has stagnated. Stuck in adolescence. Sure his range of attacking shots has grown thanks to the white ball stuff but in terms of building an innings he is still doing the same thing he was five years ago. Meanwhile their opponents have matured. Aided and abetted by video and statistical analysis and encouraged most recently by some sporting surfaces, bowlers have wised up. Just as batsman have forsaken patience, they have discovered its worth. A couple of boundaries is no longer due cause for a kick of the footholes or a volley of expletives. Captains are now increasingly happy to offer boundary protection (keeping the catchers but offering the single) in the knowledge that these cavaliers are unlikely or unable to change his game. As a result bowlers are more willing to play the waiting game. They've watched the videos, they've seen the stats, enough balls in a certain area and most batsmen, Root included, will give you a chance.

It was telling that before the Test series in the Caribbean Root stated that "you don't win games by batting long periods of time, you win games by scoring big runs". Now while it is possible to bat for long periods of time WITHOUT scoring big runs, it is, especially in the T20 era, rather improbable. And surely the longer you bat the better your chances of amassing those runs? It almost makes you feel that the entire basis of the strategy set out in Sri Lanka, to 'get the runs before they get you', was predicated more on the ability and mental capacity of the English batsmen than on the conditions and the bowlers they were set to face. That it worked was a happy coincidence but it is not and can never be a recipe for consistent Test match success.

Instead of poo-pooing the value of patience and restraint Root could do worse than to look at the example of Steve Waugh. Hard as it is believe, but when he first game on the international scene he was lauded for the freeness and range of his stroke play. But such freedom brought only limited success. Only when he decided to sure up his game, eschewing risk and instead waiting for the bad ball did his fortunes change. In 46 Tests up to December 1992, Waugh scored 2166 runs at an average 36. In the next 122 he made 8761 at 56.

Even Root's contemporaries and rivals (and fellow captains) have shown the value of abstinence.  Virat Kohli performance in the English summer past, was a model for any batsman facing such 'ego-burying' conditions. Even Smith himself, when confronted at Brisbane by a bowling strategy designed (by Root) solely to frustrate and restrict, refused to give it away and ultimately redirected and amplified that frustration back to bowler and captain. Root had a front row seat on both occasions but appears uninterested in the lessons.

Go back three years ago and you would have put Root on a par with Kohli and Kane Williamson with Smith slightly ahead. For the moment he has been left behind. Despite the boyish smile there is no lack of toughness, but does he have it in him to suppress his natural instincts and be what his team needs him to be - not just an accomplished competitor but a talented fighter.  Kohli would see it as a challenge, does he?

Jennings returns as England seek to avoid calypso collapso

Only three weeks ago I expressed concern that judging the progress of Joe Root's side would be  impossible if their next opponents reverted to the sort of spineless and inept performance which has been an all too regular feature of their Test cricket over recent years. I wish to offer an apology to readers, it was, admittedly, just a simple typo but a very misleading one. Of course I meant Jason Holder's side.

Holder sits this last game out, convicted and punished for negligently stretching the Antiguan massacre well beyond its natural death ( probably somewhere after Tea on Day 2) and in the process prolonging the suffering of England supporters already burdened by the stresses, strains and painful decision-making processes (rum punch or Wadadli? paddling pool or jet-ski?) that are part and parcel of watching cricket on tropical island paradises. I hope he is suitably ashamed.

Meanwhile Joe Root must be looking back fondly to those halcyon days before the Sri Lankan tour when the spectre of Alistair Cook still loomed large and questions were routinely raised as the Yorkshireman's 'ownership' of the side. Not any more. After the emphatic 3-0 victory, we all agreed: this was Root's team now. You're welcome Joe. Of course we may have slightly overestimated the Sri Lankans. They looked a poor side, possibly the weakest they have put out since their inaugural Test and yet their stock manages to drop even further every time England bat.

So where does Root go from here? Well you would have thought the calming effects of the rum punch would have been a good starting point but whilst some of his teammates have taken this option Root has headed back to the sanctuary of the nets to iron out some footwork issues. To each their own. And maybe he's right. Certainly England's current problems would be eased if their one world class batsman, started performing like one. How effective would have Australia, India or New Zealand have been in recent years if Smith, Kohli or Williamson had performed as spasmodically as he has?

It is true that India might choose to nuance their answer by pointing to their triumph Down Under and to the seminal role played not by Kohli but the pertinacious and indefatigable number 3, Cheteshwar Pujara or "Steve" as they call him in Yorkshire. "Geoffrey" might have been a more appropriate moniker. Certainly not Jonny.

The brief and frankly desperate hope that Bairstow might prove to be the long term replacement to Jonathan Trott, seems now as ridiculous in practise as it always did in theory. It might have made sense if the English middle order was itself a balanced mix of stroke players and accumulators but it is not. 'Go hard' seems to be their default plan; if that doesn't work they go to their back up plan: 'go harder'. We can rightly ask, demand even, that such talented strokemakers display better shot selection and situational awareness, but to ask them to fundamentally change how they play would be self-defeating (as is in danger of happening with Ben Stokes). Even the great West Indies side of the 80's recognised that too much calypso risked too much collapso. They had Greenidge, they had Richards, they had Lloyd but they also had Gomes. Where is England's Larry? Or Steve? Or Geoffrey even?

It was, I thought, somewhat ironic or indeed telling that Keaton Jennings was dropped after he and Rory Burns had put together one of the longest opening stands by an English opening partnership in some time in the second innings in Barbados. Jennings gutsed it out for almost 30 overs scoring a Brathwaite-like 14. He didn't look good, he never exuded permanence but he stuck in. How different the number three role might have looked to Joe Root (still England's best option in that position) if even this had been a regular event. Instead, and perhaps not unreasonably, the selectors focused on the method of Jennings' dismissal - a horrible stiff legged drive which once again suggested a technique modelled on the Test Match board game. Nevertheless it seemed an odd moment make the change, particularly with the sparsity of options available. Jennings' place went to Joe Denly a top-order player but one whose primary success has come in T20. It showed.

Whatever the reasons and they are numerous, England simply aren't developing players with the application or technique that is required. What they would give for a player of Shai Hope's class at number three, or even someone with Kraigg Brathwaite's selfless restraint and resilience at the top. Now with only pride to play for and with little other choice, Jennings has been restored for the Final Test with Denly dropping down a spot and Bairstow retaking the gloves (and a more suitable batting position). But what odds on any of this top three facing Australia in August? Time for a rum punch I think.