Three games, two defeats, and almost no room for error. It is not a completely strange position for England to find themselves in, but it does not usually happen quite so quickly. Many members of England’s squad are World Cup winners from four years ago, or from last year’s T20 tournament, and they are used to being favourites.
They are used to walking out being expected – often even by their opponents – to win the game, and going into tournaments being expected to reach finals and win trophies. They are used to having a certain reputation, and they have used it to their advantage. They want to go out and dominate teams and play aggressive cricket, and they are assisted by the confidence that comes with success. Being treated as favourites has helped them to play like favourites. Now we will see how they deal with doubt.
Ben Stokes spoke to the team in the dressing room after the defeat by Afghanistan, and if ever there was a player to lift a team in that moment it is Ben, someone who relates to players and who speaks with clarity. On Saturday, when they play South Africa, he will surely be able to help guide the team from the pitch.
Just over a month ago I watched Stokes warm up in the nets at the Oval before an ODI against New Zealand, working with England’s batting coach, Marcus Trescothick. He was clearly struggling very badly with his knee. Then he went out and smashed 182, pretty much on one leg. It was right for England not to play him in their first three games if they felt he was not fully fit, but it is right that they do play him in this one, even if they know he is not. He has to play, because England have to get it right and they are more likely to do that with him in the side. They cannot bow out of the tournament while this wonderful player continues a rehabilitation programme on the sidelines – and if they have lost three already with Pakistan, India and Australia among the teams they still have to play they are surely all but out.
So how much do England have to change the team that performed so poorly against Afghanistan? My opinion would be that the personnel needs to change only slightly, but their approach needs to change significantly.
The team still has credit in the bank. These are players who were performing decently at home only a few weeks ago, players with a lot of experience and a lot of success to call upon. This is a group full of fantastic individuals, and they will remain fantastic players whatever happens in the remainder of this World Cup. But I feel this group is too good to disappoint again, particularly if it is strengthened by a nearly or even fully fit Stokes.
What they need is absolute clarity. Now is the time for England’s best players, their most experienced players, to be really certain about their roles in the side and the strengths they have, allowing them to take the pressure on and lead from the front.
England have batted too passively so far, but that does not mean they should all now storm out, bat swinging. Jonny Bairstow should puff his chest out and go hard because that is his natural game, and later in the innings Stokes and Jos Buttler can do the same, but Dawid Malan and Joe Root play in a different fashion, and must play to their strengths without distraction.
Personally I would leave the top three, all of whom are in decent form: Malan scored 140 against Bangladesh, Root got 77 and 82 in his first two games of the tournament, and Bairstow made 33 and 52 in his first two innings, and was on the receiving end of a really marginal lbw call against Afghanistan. Then I would bring Stokes in at four, followed by Buttler and Harry Brook, who keeps his place after top scoring against Afghanistan. Mark Wood, Reece Topley and Adil Rashid all have to play. That leaves two big questions: Liam Livingstone or Sam Curran, and Chris Woakes or David Willey?
Livingstone bowled 10 overs against Afghanistan and seems quite confident with the ball at the moment, and offers a more serious threat with the bat. Leaving out Curran obviously reduces England’s seam options, but I like the balance of the side with Livingstone in it.
Watching Curran and Woakes bowl against Afghanistan was concerning. I wondered if they persisted in bowling wide of off stump because those had been their instructions – it has definitely happened in the past, especially against opposition England feel they can bully, that they have bowled plenty of short balls, making them struggle playing the pull and the cut, and also less effective when we do pitch it up. But Matthew Mott, England’s coach, later confirmed that they had intended to threaten the stumps and that was a real worry. If a bowler who doesn’t have express pace is bowling with a ball that doesn’t do much, they have to be super accurate, and both Curran and Woakes bowled at times without accuracy.
Willey would seem a like-for-like replacement for Woakes, but selecting him would mean opening the bowling with two left-armers in Willey and Topley. England’s analysts will have been hard at work over the last few days identifying the strengths and weaknesses of South Africa’s batters, and this decision may come down to them. It is hard to say whether it’s the right time to leave out Woakes, who has been so far below his best so far in this tournament but has been so reliable for so many years before that, but if having two left-armers doesn’t play to South Africa’s strengths I would be tempted by Willey. It is so important to take wickets with the new ball, and he might be more likely to provide a bit of movement in the first six overs. When the ball swings you can find that even some of the most famous white-ball players, used to a ball that doesn’t move, have terrible footwork and are found wanting.
South Africa have good, dangerous players but they need their top four to provide a base and that makes early wickets key. They started the tournament superbly but after losing their last game to the Netherlands they, like England, will be dealing with doubt. The key question is which side will play without it.
