England’s Opening Enigma: An Unsolved Riddle

Today new writer Jack Gabriel looks at England’s problems at the top of the order. How did we get into this mess?

With mercy finally upon us, and the urn aloft in Australian arms once more, the quadrennial post-mortem of another barbarous Ashes series Down Under can properly begin. In truth, it’s an inquest that has been inevitable since ball one of the tour.

While, for some, immediate focus shifted to England’s T20 outfit in their preparations for another World Cup, the more ardent bastions of Test cricket amongst us have been left to examine where it all went wrong…again.

The overwhelming, if not unanimous, consensus rightly highlights the batting. The aforementioned maiden ball of the series, which saw Mitchell Starc castle Rory Burns’ stumps, proving an ominous portent for what was to come.

Now, whilst no English batsman covered themselves in glory, it was arguably the fragility of the side’s opening partnerships that should be of the highest cause for concern.

The decade-long saga to replace Sir Andrew Strauss, and more recently Sir Alastair Cook, has seen seventeen try, and fail, to cement a place at the top of the order, with this winter’s Ashes undeniably the nadir of the seemingly irremediable search.

Prior to the second innings in Sydney, England’s opening stands on the tour had, on average, lasted just 4.1 overs for a paltry 9.57 runs. Such egregious starts to their innings instantly put England on the back foot and were largely responsible for the team’s perpetual inability to put 300 on the board.

The loss of early wickets regularly exposed the likes of Joe Root to the newer ball, with the talisman walking to the middle inside the opening 10 overs in half of England’s innings. By contrast, the issue occurred just twice to counterpart Steve Smith, both in the final Test.

So, how much blame should be apportioned to Burns, Haseeb Hameed and Zak Crawley? And who should be on the plane for the West Indies tour in March?

For many, the abrupt answer to the latter is: “Not Hameed.” After initial defiance at The Gabba, churning out a gritty 25 off 75 in the first innings and a slightly more fluent 27 in the second, Hameed became acquiescent quarry for a relentlessly metronomic Australian attack.

His next six outings amassed just 28 runs, at a miserly average of 4.66, with the Nottinghamshire opener failing to reach double figures on each occasion. His tour stats were so pitiful, that his average of 10 is the lowest ever recorded by an English opening batsman in a Test series of seven or more innings.

In a prescient warning to the selectors, many analysts highlighted the potential flaw in Hameed’s technique before a ball was bowled. The 25-year-old has a penchant for playing with low hands, an idiosyncrasy ill-suited to the high bounce generated on Aussie wickets.

Unsurprisingly, that particular prophecy was fulfilled all too regularly, with Hameed repeatedly being dismissed by edging sharply ascending deliveries pitched on a fourth or fifth stump line. Given West Indian pitches have historically offered a similar level of bounce to those in Australia, Hameed could face a prolonged exclusion from the side.

In Hobart, the latest trial and error episode paired Burns and Crawley together for the first time. After a characteristically calamitous start in the first innings, the two went on to record the highest opening stand of the entire series in the second. The score on 68 before Burns chopped on for 26.

That returning knock raised Burns’ series average to 12.83. Miserly? Absolutely. But it’s still disputable as to whether the Surrey opener should have been the man to be dropped in the first place.

The longer-term stats certainly defended his corner. During 2021, he made the second most runs of any England player and at the third highest average (27.98) of the batting contingent, behind Joe Root and Dawid Malan.

Only Root passed fifty more often than the three occasions Burns did, and the 31-year-old was the only player, other than the England captain, to make a Test hundred in the calendar year.

Additionally, of England’s 2021 opening quartet, Burns holds both the highest Test average (30.32) and the highest first-class average (41.40). After surpassing 1000 first-class runs in each season between 2014 and 2019, the Surrey stalwart’s copious run- Scoring continued domestically in 2021. His average of 47.46 was more appreciable than Hameed’s (37.72), Crawley’s (33.52) and Dom Sibley’s (36.15).

Such statistics do not completely exonerate Burns’ abysmal Ashes average this winter, but they do indicate a slightly precipitous exclusion, one which was emblematic of the shambolic selection decisions made both on the tour and, arguably, before the travelling party even boarded the plane.

With regard to both the model and execution of their selection process, perhaps England have been hoisted by their own petard. A high rotation and a horses-for-courses mantra hasn’t been successful. Largely because the wrong horses have been chosen for the wrong courses.

One horse that wasn’t even flown out, Dom Sibley, is a victim of England’s slightly myopic approach to selection. After a flourishing 2020 averaging 47.3, last year acted as a sobering reminder of the ruthlessness of Test cricket for the Warwickshire opener.

Sibley’s weakness against spin was exposed in sub-continental tours to Sri Lanka and India, where turning pitches saw him labour to an average of 17.81. Then, after four matches facing the world’s best two Test sides in English conditions, he was dropped for Hameed .

But many highlighted that his technique and temperament are better suited to Australian conditions than his replacement’s. Sibley is taller and plays with higher hands than Hameed, a recipe far more conducive to success in Australia than the sub-continent, for example.

Ironically, Sibley was selected for tours in Sri Lanka and India, but not Australia – where pitches closely mirror the South African wickets he averaged 54 on. Contrastingly, Hameed was left at home for the Asia tours – despite averaging 43.8 in India – but selected for the Ashes tour, where he scored at a meagre 10.

Having boasted an average of 45.2 against the West Indian attack in a fruitful 2020 and given the Caribbean’s bouncier pitches should suit his game, the clamour for Sibley’s recall has merit.

Ultimately, the responsibility for the Ashes selection farrago falls on head coach Chris Silverwood. Following a restructure last spring, Ed Smith was stood down as national selector, affording complete control to Silverwood in the assembling of England’s squads.

Ashley Giles, the managing director of England men’s cricket at the time, cited a need for “greater lines of accountability” when addressing the power shift, something which could cost Silverwood his job following the questionable party and playing 11 picks.

However, to Silverwood’s credit, he did persist with the inclusion of Crawley in the touring party despite an atrocious 2021, in which the Kent batsman averaged just 10.81 from 16 innings on the international scene.

Notwithstanding such a scant return, Crawley showcased his true potential during second innings knocks in Sydney and Hobart. An aesthetically pleasing 77 in the former demonstrated his exciting repertoire, with some terrifically timed on-drives, pull shots and clips off his pads all racing to the ropes.

For England fans, it was refreshing to see someone manfully counter the brilliance of the parsimonious Australian attack with such distain. Perhaps following Jonny Bairstow’s belligerent blueprint from the first innings, it espouses the principle that sometimes attack is the best form of defence. Without going back to the wild extremes of selecting Jason Roy to open, it’s a potential brand to endorse moving forward.

Crawley’s innings in Sydney was a snapshot of his capabilities, one which will have cemented his case, but not his place, for opening in the West Indies. And also, one which proves stats can adversely belie ability. Whilst a sole good knock doesn’t t render him as the panacea of ​​England’s longstanding issues, it’s a promising step closer to solving the conundrum.

The question remains whether Crawley is a better three than an opener. His average is higher at three (38.5) than when at the very top of the order (22.68). But that debate can wait for another day.

For now, he’ll be hoping to step out in Antigua, most likely alongside Burns again, for the latest instalment of this perennial saga. Approaching his 24th birthday, there’s genuine justification for hopes that Crawley can offer renewed life to a moribund batting line -up and be half of the long-term solution to England’s opening enigma.

Jack Gabriel

Related