How may England's title defence at the ICC Men's Cricket World Cup 2023 stop before it ever started
Jos Buttler's team lost to Sri Lanka on Thursday, their
fourth loss in five games, marking the closest thing England could have done to
forfeit its World Cup championship defence.Even skipper Buttler conceded that
the level of poor performance by his squad has been difficult to comprehend.
Buttler remarked following Sri Lanka's
eight-wicket thumping.The bowlers for England were the weak point in all three
of their opening losses; the fourth was caused by their batting collapse
against Sri Lanka.
However, what specific causes are to blame for England's tournament's disastrous outcome? We
examine some of the main causing variables.Selection irregularities
Before the competition, England's selection policy was largely stable. Pick the best five
players, share the fifth bowler position between Moeen Ali and Liam Livingstone
at six and seven, and then select three quicks and Adil Rashid to complete the
XI.
Although England didn't follow through on their strategy, the team they chose supported it, and
the attitude hasn't appeared steady since the tournament began.
Match 1: They hedged their bets against New Zealand, naming Curran and the two spinning
all-rounders, leaving the side with an offensive that appeared to be
under-equipped in terms of pace-bowling.
Despite his remarkable performance in Twenty20 cricket, Curran has not yet established
himself as a dependable front-line bowler in One-Day Internationals
(ODIs).Matches 2 and 3: England decided to correct the imbalance by starting
Curran instead of vice-captain Moeen against Afghanistan and Bangladesh. This
added pace to the team by including the great Topley, who had been oddly left
out of the opening match. Given that Moeen had been England's vice captain and
a crucial leader on the field, the decision was logical, but it still
represented a big shift. Masch 4: After losing
to Afghanistan and losing Ben Stokes, England made a total of four changes to
their playing eleven, dropping the all-rounders and selecting six designated
batsmen, four quicks, and one spinner. This action represented a radical break
from England's previous plan.
Match 5: The selectors' strategy for the Sri Lanka match was drastically changed after the
defeat to South Africa. Three more changes followed, with Moeen and Livingstone
coming back and Brook going out, to create a balance that was the first time
they had picked an XI consistent with their pre-tournament thinking. The finest
bowler for England versus South Africa, Gus Atkinson, was left off the starting
lineup. Although each of the various lineups and batting orders has advantages, it is debatable whether
England would benefit more from the all-rounder balance or the six-best-batter
strategy.
However, England's issue is that there is a severe lack of consistency in selection because even
the decision-makers are unsure about the starting XI. The outcomes speak for
themselves; most players appear uneasy and unconfident as a result of the
drastic cutting and altering.confused reasoning during the toss
After winning the toss and choosing to bowl first, England lost two of its matches. The choice was
unclear in both situations.
Afghanistan demonstrated their ability to chase down a respectable total against Pakistan,
but their best chance of upsetting a side like England was always going to be
to start strong with their opening players, amass a respectable first-inning
total, and then apply more pressure with their spinners. That's precisely what
they were permitted to do by England.Even more unexpected was England's choice
to toss versus South Africa. choosing an XI with just five primary bowling options,
two of whom (Mark Wood and Reece Topley) have a history of injuries, and one of
whom (Adil Rashid) was noticeably ill.
On the third hottest October day Mumbai has experienced in a decade, asking those five to
bowl first was a massive risk. In the heat, England's offense withered.
Furthermore, South Africa had previously demonstrated during the tournament how devastating they
are when they bat first, amassing large totals against Australia and Sri Lanka
before displaying their sole weakness when the Netherlands asked them to
chase.Incapacity to adapt
After South Africa's loss, head coach Matthew Mott stated that the team's decision to bowl
first was determined by on-field statistics.
Ignoring the wisdom of such statistical manipulation, his remarks corroborate the perception that
England is adhering unduly to preconceived notions.
England selected a side that included four bowlers with new-ball swing, indicating their clear
intention to target early wickets. They then used a combination of heavy pace
and spin to dominate the middle overs.
England hasn't changed, but that hasn't worked either.
One such example is Wood. Mostly inefficient and costly in the middle overs, England may have taken
a chance and offered Wood an early over to attempt to catch the openers before
the wicket was settled. They may have even taken a chance with some early spin,
as other teams have (the Netherlands foremost among them). Even though Plan A
is obviously failing, they haven't attempted either.