2020 Vision

2020. Just the 17 years after the ECB unleashed their Twenty20 revolution on the world. Just the 12 years since the inaugural edition of the Indian Premier League. And just the 9 years since Cricket Australia rolled out their Big Bash League.

Still, 2020 – the marketing will take care of itself, right?

Apparently not. That would be too simple. Unlike cricket, which – even in its most stripped back format – has been deemed to be too complicated and too long by the ECB, showing in the process an alarming lack of faith in both their “product” and the intelligence of the population.

Nobody is denying that Something Had To Be Done, but the idea that, essentially, cricket – the game itself – is to blame for its marginal existence in this country is farcical and offensive. Especially when this idea is coming from the very organisation that has managed the decline and marginalisation of what could and should be our national summer sport. It’s akin to Tesco riding into town as the saviour of the high street.

Sure, cricket needs to attract a new generation, but do we really entrust this grave responsibility to Colin Graves and the ECB? How has 13 years behind a paywall helped? How, really, will a token ten games of the new tournament on the BBC help? How will further marginalising the County Championship help? How has milking and taking for granted the existing fans helped? How is alienating them going to help? How has encouraging the stag-do culture of heavy drinking at cricket helped? Couldn’t the ECB have lobbied for more – any? – cricket in state schools? This is no slight on Chance To Shine, but isn’t there something symbolic in the task of getting kids to play cricket being left to a charity? Why wait until now to try and engage the south Asian demographic in this country? Why let the Caribbean community drift away from the game? How will scrapping the Kia Super League help capitalise on the staggering success of the 2017 Women’s World Cup?

Cricket, to my mind (a mind that has been obsessed with the game for over thirty years, man and boy), is as good if not better than it has ever been. The last week alone has served up some tremendous drama: Sri Lanka’s miracle Test win in South Africa; Melbourne Stars’ choke-to-end-all-chokes in the BBL final; and England’s record ODI chase in Barbados. 

So forgive me for being sceptical. Forgive me for questioning the motives for introducing a fourth format into an already overcrowded schedule. Forgive me for questioning whether the new format, details of which were confirmed today, is in any way simpler and more accessible than T20. Forgive me for doubting whether the ECB can capitalise on the upcoming summer which could end up with England winning a World Cup and Ashes on home soil. Don’t forget, the last great opportunity – the 2005 Ashes – wasn’t exactly grasped when cricket’s soul was sold to Sky.

And that money is now being siphoned off to marketing wonks, so I seek no forgiveness when quoting Alan Partridge: “They’ve rebadged it, you fool.”

In a more sane world, 2020 would see the belated start of the English T20 Premier League. It would comprise of the top 8 County T20 sides. One champion. Two relegated. No strategic time-outs, no drinks breaks, strict enforcement of over rates. And it would be marketed. And on free-to air.

But even in a sane world, it might still rain.

Glee & Sympathy

In an inversion of the line about comedy being tragedy plus time, the comedy of sandpapergate has, over time (has it not even been a week?!), taken on a somewhat tragic undercurrent. Indeed, as Barney Ronay of the Guardian tweeted, “Cricket Australia has achieved the impossible and made me feel sorry for David Warner.” He might have missed an almost in there somewhere, but there was no doubt that pity was the overriding emotion during Steve Smith’s press conference. Cameron Bancroft’s, too.

Who knows if a David Warner press conference would have elicited the same response, but it seems to me that to only communicate his remorse via social media was either a PR own goal or an indication that he might intend to challenge his sentence. Maybe, as my pal Tom suggested, Warner is wrestling with his inner dialogue. Here’s hoping he’s preparing two press conferences – one as the Reverend and one as the Bull.

Let’s get this straight. It is not unreasonable to wholly condemn Smith, Warner and Bancroft and yet still feel sorry for them. Sympathy doesn’t compromise the fact that they cheated and lied about it twice, doesn’t let them off the hook. Equally, condemnation doesn’t prevent them from feeling remorseful, or for the sense that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Perhaps the timing of this is a factor. Cricket Australia (and no doubt their sponsors) might want to make sure the bans are enforced during a home summer.

Faf du Plessis must be glad he’s not Australian. True, he didn’t lie to the umpires or in a press conference, but he has been done twice for ball-tampering, first with the zip of his trousers and then with a mint, and only ever been fined. Again, this doesn’t exonerate the Australians, but it might explain why they failed to grasp the gravity of the situation, why, even before we consider their lack of self-awareness and sense of entitlement, they might not have foreseen such a gulf between the sanctions dished out by the ICC and Cricket Australia.

It boils down to the laws of the game being at odds with the spirit of the game, and it’s an age-old problem for cricket. Ball-tampering is no different. There needs to be a meeting in the middle, whether you believe the sanctions should reflect the moral outrage, or the moral outrage should be dialled down to reflect the tacit admission that everyone is ball-tampering and that reverse swing is not something to be hounded out of the game.

This series will of course be remembered for sandpapergate, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that there has been plenty of excellent cricket – much of it involving reverse swing and justifying my decision to purchase a month’s Sky Sports pass on Now TV. Equally, it shouldn’t be forgotten that there are human beings involved in all this. They are allowed to be remorseful and, yes, they are allowed our sympathy as well as our scorn.

 

 

 

 

 

The Gaffe That Keeps Giving

What to make of sandpapergate? Fun, that’s what. It was funny when it happened and the mirth has hardly relented.

It’s cheating, though. It’s just not cricket. It shouldn’t be so funny. But it is. Precisely because it is cricket.

It is said that only cockroaches will survive a nuclear holocaust, but the fabled spirit of cricket is surely equally bombproof, if the surprise and moral outrage at the events in Cape Town are anything to go by. From a family board game to the boardroom of the world’s biggest powers, humans have always been tempted to bend the rules. Why should cricket, even before you delve into its chequered history, be any different? And why should the punishment be so great? After all, Mike Atherton’s sanction for the dirt in the pocket affair in 1994 was purely financial. True, times have changed since then, but, as recently as 2016, Faf du Plessis received nothing more than a fine for mintgate – his second charge of ball-tampering in three years. As Jo Harman of Wisden tweeted shortly before it was officially announced that Steve Smith and David Warner were to be banned for a year and Cameron Bancroft for nine months: “A punishment to fit the reaction to the crime, not the crime itself.”

Maybe it wouldn’t be so funny – and the reaction to it so extreme – had it not been so inept, so lacking in subtlety. How did they think they were going to get away with it? Moreover, once they had been rumbled on the big screen, how did they still think they could get away with it? And how could anyone conclude that credit should be given to Bancroft and Steve Smith for fronting up and confessing at the post-match press conference? What choice did they have? Certainly less choice than Darren Lehmann when he appeared to get on the walkie-talkie to presumably tell Twelfth Man Peter Handscomb to advise Bancroft to dispose of the evidence. How Lehmann has thus far escaped censure is surprising, to say the least. Even if you buy the explanation that the head coach wasn’t part of the “leadership group” (translation: Warner) that cooked up the plot, the evidence suggests that Lehmann was complicit in the cover-up attempt – and he has to be responsible for a team so widely despised and so willing to adopt the win-at-all-costs culture that has ultimately led to this sorry episode.

Let’s face it, maybe it wouldn’t be so funny – and. again, the reaction to it so extreme – if it wasn’t Australia. It was funny enough when Warner, of all people, took exception to something Quinton de Kock said during the first Test in Durban. Funnier still, especially for Stuart Broad, when Lehmann complained of abusive fans. These things always come in threes, I suppose, so it didn’t take long for the footage to emerge of Warner speaking in the immediate aftermath of Faf du Plessis’ ball-tampering in 2016.

“I just know from an Australian perspective: we hold our heads high and I’ll be very disappointed if one of our team members did that.”

Maybe it wouldn’t be so funny if Australia hadn’t been so sanctimonious, if they hadn’t become the self-appointed moral guardians of cricket’s notoriously wonky moral compass, arbiters of the mythical line that only they were allowed to headbutt. As my pal Jim has just pointed out, maybe Lehmann couldnt see what was going on because of all the petards being hoisted. Well, it’s come back to bite them. And the rest of the cricketing world is enjoying the schadenfreude. As Geoffrey Boycott has so often said, “it couldn’t happen to nicer folk.”

Maybe it wouldn’t be so funny if Australia didn’t have to accept that the myth has been busted. Winning is not dependent on being an objectionable hard-nosed bastard. Steve Waugh’s team didn’t win because of mental disintegration. They won because they had Shane Warne. And Glenn McGrath. And Adam Gilchrist. They could have won on mute. Michael Clarke’s team didn’t inflict a whitewash because England were getting ready for a broken arm. They won because they had Mitchell Johnson.

Maybe it wouldn’t be so funny if part of me didn’t necessarily want Australia to reach this conclusion (and maybe they won’t – culture has deep roots). Maybe cricket needs its cartoon villains, needs countries to buy into the sanctimony at the core of a game that can justify plenty of unjustifiable actions while simultaneously stirring up a whole world of moral outrage.

Lastly, a word of warning. Italy, on the back of a huge match-fixing scandal, went on to win the 2006 World Cup. Australia, with a point to prove and fresh leadership could do the same next year – in the World Cup and the Ashes. Enjoy the humour while you can.

2019 Priorities

Remember when the Ashes were moved to ensure England could have ideal preparation for the 2015 World Cup? Remember when Sri Lanka was deemed the ideal place to prepare for a World Cup in Australia and New Zealand? And when the idea of Alastair Cook getting in the best XI – let alone being captain – was finally abandoned on the eve of the tournament? Fail to prepare; prepare to fail. Fail to qualify for the knock-out stages. Check the data.

On Friday, Eoin Morgan captained the ODI team for a record 70th time, overseeing a comfortable 4-wicket win to go 2-0 up against the World Cup holders. Andrew Strauss deserves credit for sticking with Morgan as captain after the 2015 shambles, and also, as far as white-ball cricket is concerned, for appointing Trevor Bayliss as coach. A young and talented squad have thrived under their leadership and example. Preparation for the 2019 World Cup has been bubbling along nicely.

2019. It sounds so futuristic, but it’s next year. Next summer is a big one for cricket in this country. A World Cup and the Ashes. The last summer before the shiny new domestic T20 competition. A good time to attract new fans. A good time to win.

Maybe being 2-0 up in the One-Dayers after a 4-0 Ashes drubbing is clouding my judgement, but right now I’d be more confident of England winning the World Cup than regaining the Ashes. That in itself is no bad thing, but there is the sense that this is the future, that English cricket will continue to breed white-ball specialists, that the landscape has shifted, priorities changed.

Test cricket is still said to be the pinnacle, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to scale. It’s hard to be critical of players choosing the IPL over early-season County Championship, and the scheduling of no red-ball cricket in the hea(r)t of the summer is no fault of the players. Nor first-class pitches often being no preparation for Test match cricket.

How is Jason Roy to break into the Test team? How are Alex Hales, Jos Buttler and Adil Rashid supposed to prove they are worth persevering with in Test cricket? What of the next generation? There’s no doubting the talent, but that talent is no longer harnessed in the Test arena. It’s not inconceivable to think Haseem Hameed will be the last “proper” Test batsman. There has been a marked divergence in the Test and ODI sides, to the obvious benefit of the ODI side. Meanwhile, the Test team remains a frustrating work in progress, the sense that it could benefit from some of the spirit and personnel of the ODI team.

Who knows, perhaps after next year’s World Cup, and with the advent of a Test Championship, the emphasis will change. Eyes will return to the Test team, but will it be in time for the Ashes? Not too much of a stretch to think that Cook, Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad might not be around. Or that, if they can stay fit, Mitchell Starc and co might make hay of whoever makes up the England batting order. Is it too late to move the Ashes back a year? To ensure ideal preparation. It worked last time…

Mid-Ashes Whatiffery

Wednesday 6th December, 2017. I’m babysitting my two nieces. It’s been a long day.

My brother, Ed: “Do you know, Uncle Will, that Martha is reading a particularly silly bedtime story at the moment?”

Me: “Is it as silly as the story of a man who got up at at 3 o’clock this morning to watch an all-but-lost cricket match?”

My six-year-old niece, Martha: “Even sillier than that.”

Sure enough, You’re a Bad Man, Mr Gum proved to be pretty silly, but it wasn’t until later on in the evening, and thanks to another book, that I came to realise that Martha was right.

The Power of the Dog* by Don Winslow was the book in question, and the words leapt off the page:

“He starts with the magic words, What if. The two most powerful words in any language.”

What if there’s such a thing as momentum in cricket? What if it ignores history and the difficulty of resuming an innings on a fifth day pitch against a relentless four-man attack with the Ashes on the line? What if it hasn’t been checked by Dawid Malan’s dismissal ten minutes before the close of play on day/night four?

What if it’s batting weather? What if the pitch is flat and the ball soft? What if the threat of Nathan Lyon’s off-spin is negated by England’s remaining right-handers? What if Joe Root and Chris Woakes are still at the crease in eighteen overs when the new ball is due? What if the new ball is seen off? What if Root converts his fifty into a century? What if it’s a “Daddy”? What if Moeen Ali plays a brilliant counter-attacking innings? What if it doesn’t matter that Jonny Bairstow is batting too low in the order? What if Stuart Broad overcomes The Fear and remembers how to bat? What if Jimmy Anderson won’t even need to bat? What if the travelling support continues to act as a twelfth man for England? What if the twelfth man is allowed to bat?

What if the pressure gets to Steve Smith? What if he lives to regret wasting those reviews on the fourth evening? And not enforcing the follow-on?  What if the risk of picking a four-man bowling attack is shown up? And picking a wicket keeper out of left field? What if an injury-prone quick pulls up lame? What if Mitchell Starc has a case of the Mitchell Johnsons and starts bowling to the left and the right? What if all the luck goes England’s way?

What if England win?

They won’t.

Yeah, but what if they do?

They won’t.

I know. I know. But what if they do? And what if I miss watching them do it? By choice. Of all the what ifs, that might just be the most powerful. Powerful enough for me to not ignore a 3am alarm. Powerful enough for me to get out of bed, put the kettle on and fire up the lap top.

What if. What is sport – what is life – without what if?

They didn’t win. Of course they didn’t, and all the whatiffery has turned to if only.

If only England had more pace. If only Mark Wood wasn’t the cricketing equivalent of Jack Wilshere. If only Toby Roland-Jones hadn’t suffered a stress fracture. If only the bowlers had pitched it up in the first innings. If only an English batsman had shown the same patience as Shaun Marsh. If only Alastair Cook could rediscover his once-in-a-lifetime 2010/11 form. If only one of his several thousand opening partners since then had nailed down a spot. If only James Taylor hadn’t had a career-ending (but thankfully not life-ending) heart condition. If only Root could convert more of his fifties into hundreds. If only James Vince could add some substance to the style, could learn from his mistakes and stop nicking off. If only the batting replacement in the squad wasn’t Gary Ballance. If only Bairstow had batted higher up the order. If only Moeen hadn’t missed the warm-up games with a side strain. If only he hadn’t cut his spinning finger. If only England had a world class spinner.

If only.

And that’s before we get to the biggest of the lot: if only Ben Stokes hadn’t got himself into a whole world of trouble. As loathe as I am to moralise, I can’t help feeling let down. For better or worse, Stokes is the heart and soul of this England team. He is also a fine player and helps balance the side. They are diminished without him, and, while I don’t think for a minute he should be playing with the threat of a criminal charge hanging over him, the same can be said of this Ashes series.

There is, however, another what if that is largely being ignored. What if Australia had enforced the follow-on? It’s not too much of a stretch to believe England would have lost by an innings. To go with the record ten-wicket rout at the Gabba. Having won the toss in both games, having yet to encounter the kind of fast, bouncy pitches that are supposed to be their undoing – the kind of pitch that most likely awaits in Perth – would Root still be claiming that England are still “massively in this series”?

That Root is remaining bullish (in public, at least) speaks volumes for his character, and comes as a welcome contrast to a haunted-looking Cook failing to convince that his side could take any positives from yet another drubbing on the last tour Down Under. That I so readily go for that comparison goes to show how much of a shadow is still being cast by that disastrous 2013/14 whitewash. Compared to that omnishambles, England are massively in this series. 2-0 down, but a better kind of 2-0. The strange thing about four years ago was that it was both a massive shock and, once it got going, an inevitability. We could yet end up with another whitewash, but the inevitability doesn’t seem as crushing and, since that fateful September night in Bristol, neither would be it be so shocking.

Still, there’s always, you know, what if…?

* Recommended reading, albeit not to your six-year-old niece.

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-Ashes Musings

There’s more. Of course there’s more, but it’s just a distraction – something to pass the time before the Ashes, before the Gabba in November. Not that the task of trying to pick an England XI for that first Test isn’t distraction enough.

Joe Root’s reign began with the news that the captain would bat at four. The question of who should replace him at three remains unsolved. Gary Ballance, on the back of some eye-catching early season form, batting at five for Yorkshire, was the first to stake a claim. That he didn’t wasn’t helped by having his hand broken by Morne Morkel, but, against an excellent South African attack, the same old doubts about Ballance’s ability to score consistently in Test cricket were still not far from the surface.

Tom Westley has since filled the role, and it is to be hoped that a 44 not out has given him – and the selectors – confidence. Westley certainly didn’t look to be lacking confidence on debut, looking as assured as any to have stepped into the slowly revolving doors, but it has been interesting to see Westley’s contrasting trajectory to that of his fellow debutant, Dawid Malan, who looks to have just about secured a starting spot. The scrutiny has been on Westley’s leg-favouring technique, but plenty of players have succeeded with plenty of techniques. Those who succeed have the good sense to hone technique rather than change it. Easier said than done, in the heat of the Ashes, but like Rakim said: Don’t Sweat the Technique.

Of all those in the XI for the recently concluded Test, it is Westley’s place that is most tenuous. I would say it’s under threat, but there aren’t too many threatening to do any better – certainly outside of those already in the team. Root could bat three. Ben Stokes could bat at three. Malan, too. It’s hard to criticise Root for wanting to bat at four – or, to a lesser degree, the selectors for allowing him the choice – but, for all that it might have helped him settle into the captaincy, vacating the number three position might have hindered the development of his team. Westley bats at three for Essex, yes, but he might have benefited from starting his international life lower down the order. As it is, heads are being scratched. Should he stay or should he go? And, should he go, who should his replacement be?

An important aspect to this selectorial dilemma is the balance of the team. Some are advocating shifting everybody up the order and playing Chris Woakes and Toby Roland-Jones. Or Mason Crane, if the need arises and if he’s deemed ready. It wouldn’t weaken the batting, but is there ever a need for six bowlers? I would say no, citing Liam Dawson, but a tip of the hat to my pal Ryan for questioning ever needing a fifth batsman who never scores any runs. Considering all the dropped catches in the recent series, perhaps England should just pick a fielder. Paul Collingwood is still knocking around. Or Chris Jordan.

If, as seems likely, another batsman is required, there are two options. Mark Stoneman, who, since replacing the walking-wicket of Keaton Jennings, looks to have the game and the temperament to cut the mustard, could move to three, with Haseeb Hameed returning to open. Having watched Hameed’s debut in Rajkot first hand, it seems almost inconceivable that he has not become an established international, but he needs a run-soaked, crease-occupying end to the season and even then would represent somewhat of a risk.

The other option is to move Root or Malan to three and bring in another middle-order player. Again, there are not many outstanding candidates. Not if Ballance’s name crops up again, although there is a school of thought that he may fare better at five. Maybe, however, those one-dayers against West Indies might yet prove more interesting than first thought. Alex Hales and Jos Buttler both have plenty of big game experience, but red-ball records no better than Westley or James Vince.

So England remain a team in flux – frustratingly inconsistent and still lugging about the same old questions, still haunted by the ghosts of Andrew Strauss (and his rational control of the DRS process), Jonathan Trott and Ian Bell. But for all that, the other eight are in fine fettle. Alastair Cook, free from the captaincy and having to speak in public, is back to his best; Root can’t be batting too badly if the only criticism is that he failed to convert enough of the fifties in a record-equalling twelve consecutive Tests into hundreds; Stokes is batting with a swagger that he is more than backing up, and was bowling round corners in the first innings of this last Test; Jonny Bairstow was immune to the dropping epidemic and seems to have found a home at seven; Moeen Ali is the best number eight since Zinzan Brook; Chris Woakes, if he can regain fitness and form, is a more than useful all-rounder; Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson are still Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson. Roland-Jones and Mark Wood are able deputies.

A lot to be upbeat about, really. Certainly more than Australia had at the end of their last summer, and arguably now, too, despite  the emergence of Matt Renshaw and Peter Handscomb. Like England, Australia really only have two banker batsmen, in David Warner and Steve Smith, but they have no equivalent to Stokes, and Matthew Wade is not in the same league as Bairstow. The bowling looks great on paper, but there must be some doubt that any three of Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazelwood, James Pattinson and Pat Cummins will be fit enough to line up with Nathan Lyon.

For what it’s worth, I’d go for the following England team:

  1. Alastair Cook
  2. Mark Stoneman
  3. Joe Root
  4. Dawid Malan
  5. Alex Hales
  6. Ben Stokes
  7. Jonny Bairstow
  8. Moeen Ali
  9. Chris Woakes
  10. Stuart Broad
  11. James Anderson

With Haseeb Hameed, Jos Buttler/Ben Foakes, Toby Roland-Jones, Mark Wood and Mason Crane in reserve.

Bring it on.

Rajkot, 720-22

Forget culture shock. It’ll be more extreme coming home. Forget the heat and the dust and the noise. Forget jet lag and homesickness. Forget anonymity and privacy.

Forget the thirteen hour train journey from Mumbai. Forget the idea that it was spent in a glorified luggage rack. Forget that the hotel I’d booked online had turned out to be closed. Forget the slightly grotty alternative.

Forget the Lonely Planet guide to India. Forget that, in a book thicker than David Warner’s bat, a quick turn to the index finds Rajkot is only afforded pages 720-22. Forget that “Rajkot is a large, hectic commercial and industrial city that isn’t easy to love with it’s heavy traffic, lack of open spaces and scant worthwhile sights.”

Forget meat and alcohol.

Forget the beggars. Forget the stray dogs. Forget the sacred cows rummaging through not so sacred piles of rubbish. Forget the puddles of piss and the smell of sewage. Forget eye-stinging traffic fumes. Forget BEEP BEEP BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP. Forget crossing the road.

Turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. Turn whatever the equivalent is for a nose.

Forget 2016. Forget heroes dying and villains gaining power. Forget Brexit and Trump.

Forget Modi.

Forget the wallet full of obsolete 500 rupee notes. Forget the 320 usable rupees to my name. Forget that banks are closed. Forget the Cashless Society. Forget how I’m getting back from the ground. Or what I’m going to eat.

Forget the suspicion that I’d paid way over the odds for travel and hotels. It will save a lot of ball-ache down the line. It really will.

Forget diminishing supplies of toilet paper.

Forget that it might not go five days. The Test, that is.

Forget it all.

Because if an unforgettable month in India taught me anything it is that watching cricket remains a necessary and welcome refuge.

This wasn’t the conclusion I was necessarily expecting to draw. If I was looking for any story, it was one of discovering for myself a nation of cricket obsessives – something that immediately took a blow when my taxi driver from Mumbai airport claimed to not like cricket.

In an excellent piece, Michael Atherton hailed Mumbai as the real home of cricket, and, to me, Oval Maiden is at its very centre. On my return to Mumbai for one night before flying home, I realised how modern and relatively un-hectic it is compared to pretty much everywhere else I visited – there are pedestrian crossings! – but during that first few days I kept finding myself gravitating to the peace and shade of Oval Maidan. Countless games of cricket is my kind of hectic. I even got to bat.

If Oval Maidan and the Saurashtra Cricket Stadium in Rajkot sowed the seeds of this idea of cricket as a refuge, it was in a hotel room in Agra that it really flowered. It was the toughest couple of days of my trip, and began with my train from Jaipur being delayed for the worst part of five hours.

The best part of those five hours, incidentally, was when I was approached by an official-looking fellow who turned out to be the station manager. Perhaps in the future, I will return to Jaipur station and take pride in the clarity of the new signage, because the station manager, on a comprehensive tour of the station, was eager to get my valued opinion on where I’d expect to see what. It was almost as random as the Jaipur tuk-tuk driver, on hearing I was from England, launching into an Alan Partridge routine. Perhaps there was something about Jaipur. My hotel was somewhat euphemistically named Amer View. The view from my window was diametrically opposed to the stunning Amer Fort, but afforded me an early morning sighting of an elephant taking a drink from a water tank. Later on, I was to see a camel do the same, but the incongruity didn’t stop there. Later that night, just as I was drifting off to sleep, I became aware of an approaching sound of music. Really loud music. A mobile disco, as it turned out, a throng of dancing bodies in its slow wake.

But forget all that.

Forget delayed trains. Forget feckless taxi drivers. Forget that I’d finally got to sleep at a little after 3am. Forget that I was woken at sunrise by the call to prayer. Forget that the Taj Mahal is closed on Fridays. Forget my only full day in Agra is a Friday. Forget being down to a single crisp new 2000 rupee note. Especially forget getting change for it. Forget walking for miles in the heat of the day. Forget lunch.

Forget all that.

The day-night Test from Adelaide is on TV. It’s fine. And Peter Handscomb, who I played with at Camden a decade ago, is scoring a fifty on dayboo. He was 15 back then and who could have said he’d be playing for Australia in ten years, but he was obviously a special player. It wasn’t just that he had a great eye and natural ability, he also knew how to score runs – more so than anyone I’ve ever played with or against, I suspect.

I got to marvel at Taj Mahal at sunrise the following day, and for all that it was jaw-droppingly magnificent, I will remember Agra as much for Handscomb’s 50. Agra was also the place where I wasn’t too ashamed to accept the offer of tourists going to the front of the queue at ATMs. Hitherto, I had entertained the locals telling me “tourist first” by replying “first is first” and insisting on queuing up with the rest of them, but life had gone on while I’d been indulging in some cricketing escapism and I was as desperate for money as I ever hope to be.

India is hard work – even before what seemed to be universally known as “money problem” I would have had to have plenty of down time; it just happened that watching the cricket made it somehow more justifiable. Never more so than that Friday in Agra.

As an aside, there were a few times when my hotel TV didn’t work and I ended up watching it on a stream on my iPod. Star TV, the rights holders, let you pay to stream live or allow you a free, 5 minute delayed streaming service. Why couldn’t Sky offer something similar? It still makes money from advertising revenue, I’d have thought, and allows the casual or poor fan access to their national game.

The first Test – the historic first Test in Rajkot – will be remembered for Stuart Broad’s 100th cap, Haseeb Hameed’s debut, hundreds for Joe Root, Moeen Ali, Ben Stokes, Alastair Cook, Murali Vijay and local hero Che Pujara, and a dramatic finish in which England were the only team trying to win. But what of the experience?

That Rajkot is not somewhere I’d have gone had it not been staging a Test match was a double-edged sword. With few English speakers and even fewer landmarks to help navigation, it was quite challenging, but there was also the sense that it was a more authentic Indian experience. I was certainly ready to move on by the end, and Udaipur didn’t half provide a stunning contrast, but I’d also grown to love Rajkot in a funny kind of way. It was interesting to hear more seasoned travellers than me speak positively of the Gujarati people. The consensus was that there was no edge to them, no sense that they were out for the tourist rupee – just a genuine warmth and pride that an Englishman had visited their home. The kind of warmth and pride that more often than not has to be captured in a selfie.

Prior to travelling, I tried not to have too many assumptions about India, but I definitely didn’t envisage spending quite so much time in ATM queues or posing for selfies. I first experienced the latter at the Gateway of India. Unacclimatised as I was, I decided to sit down and take a breather. It wasn’t long before I was approached with a selfie request, and it was to open the floodgates. It never failed to make me laugh, imagining all the “and here’s me with a sweaty and bemused-looking white man” explanations as these photos were shown off to friends and relatives.

Back to Rajkot. Each day began with a cold dribbly shower before making my way down to reception. There, I had to wake the staff sleeping on the floor (something I would later experience for myself when arriving in Udaipur at 3am with a midday check-in) in order to be let out for the five minute walk to the bus station. Which bus we’d be taking and where it would be leaving from was a mystery, and the price seemed to vary each day, but it was never more than 20 rupees and was always great crowded fun. The irony of an elderly local gentleman complaining that our impassioned cricketing discussion was too loud had us in stitches. Too loud? In India?

No buses at the end of play, however. In fact, no idea as to how to get back into town. And, on day one, no money to pay for it. In my desperation, I looked around to see the beacon of an MCC straw hat. “How does one go about getting back into town?” I asked. It turned out the owner of the straw hat and his wife were expecting a driver and we – Nick, who I had met two days previously when buying my ticket, and I – were welcome to jump in. Full of gratitude, we jumped out at their hotel and had to walk for an hour in the dust and the fumes and what remained of the light, relying on Nick’s reading of google maps. I have rarely been so exhausted by the time I got back to Hotel Shivang. Hungry, too. I took my day’s spending to 75 rupees (91p) with a roadside omelette.

That I had managed to get anything to eat and drink during the day was down to the good nature of a steward, and possibly my own powers of persuasion. It resulted in Nick and I being issued with yellow VIP Invitee wristbands which gave us access to a delicious buffet lunch. Childlike grins and knowing looks all round for those others who had managed to blag the same racket. Increasingly tatty and faded, those wristbands would work for all five days.

As if attending all five days of a Test match in a far off land wasn’t enough, the currency problem really made it a shared experience, the sense that we were living through history and we were all in it together. That we’d have a singular story to tell.

There was talk on the morning of day two of being able to use 500 rupee notes at the ground, and it was something I was eager to find out for myself. It was an odd situation. Fans wanted to buy and vendors wanted to sell, but there was an obvious obstacle. It turned out that, later in the day when they had change, vendors would take a 500 if we spent 200. Fair enough. Four ice creams might be a little excessive, but I could now afford something more nutritious than an omelette. I could afford to go to Moris, the restaurant where I went to eat great thalis and listen to colourful tales of previous tours. The rhythm of going to all five days of a Test was a great way of acclimatising and overcoming jet lag, and I soon got into a routine of which Moris was an integral and tasty part.

Day three could have been a really dogged day. Broad’s early dismissal of Gautam Gambhir proved to be a false dawn as Vijay and Pujara batted for what felt like forever. Two late wickets really changed the complexion of the day, however, underscored with a madcap tuk-tuk ride back into town. Knowing he was on to a good thing, the same tuk-tuk driver met us at the end of day four. I’m not sure what was wider, his grin or his moustache.

Another owner of a fine moustache was the police officer who sat down and, after the initial pleasantries in broken English, started to show off his commentary prowess in near faultless English. Seeing me record his efforts on my phone, a number of colleagues came to do the same. He ended up doing quite a stint.

Along with the constant requests for selfies, one thing I will never understand is the hero worship of Virat Kohli. Great, compelling player, sure, and he was to go on to have a staggeringly good series, but it was like Beatlemania or the hysteria around David Beckham. Each Kohli touch in the field was met by a shrill cheer, and there was the curious occasion of Pujara, the local hero, don’t forget, being given out and then reprieved by DRS and the crowd being disappointed that they would have to wait to see their one true hero bat.

Perhaps it’s part of a wider cultural phenomenon – the cult of the individual, and, in Indian cricket, the cult of the batsman. It’s certainly a big part of the IPL and there is the need to fill the Tendulkar-shaped hole in the national psyche. I had the misfortune to catch a bit of the Indian Super League football on TV, and was slightly offended that games were advertised as player versus player (Malouda v Forlan, for example).

It didn’t help that much of the Rajkot crowd was made up of school children, bused in to help make the ground look less depressingly empty. The nail-biting final session was played out to the surreal chants of “We Want Four; We Want Six.” No. No you don’t. You need to survive, something your hero is doing in a highly impressive manner. No, it really doesn’t matter if he gets 50.

Rajkot seems a long time ago now that England have lost the following four Tests. Maybe I should have gone to the others, but I suppose I should be grateful that I got to see England compete. If nothing else, this series has highlighted just how miraculous the win in 2012 was. That win was based on the spin of Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar, the only two world class spinners that England have had in my lifetime. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid, never mind Zafar Ansari, Gareth Batty and Liam Dawson, struggled, or that they are not of the level of Swann and Panesar.

Rashid, in fairness, bowled well in Rajkot and went on to be England’s leading wicket taker in the series. It was good to see him finally gain Cook’s trust, but, once that was established, there was no need for a third spinner – something England only caught up to for the fifth Test and then only to pick a fourth seamer for spin-friendly Mumbai instead of the specialist batsman the team were crying out for. Hmm. That two of the batting options, Gary Ballance and Ben Duckett, were unselectable, and the other was the reserve wicket keeper (albeit one with a phenomenal white ball game that suggests he could be a star at Test level) only went to highlight the errors in selection. The missed opportunity of picking Hameed in Bangladesh was apparent from the moment he nonchalantly dropped his hands and swayed back to avoid his first ball in Rajkot, and Duckett did nothing to suggest he yet has the game for these conditions. Before that, what had Ballance done to warrant a recall?

England are fortunate that a top of four of Cook, Hameed, Keaton Jennings and Root looks like it is emerging, but further down the order it becomes less clear. The situation is complicated by England having so many all-rounders –  a team of sixes. Stokes, the sixiest of England’s sixes must bat at six. Less certainty surrounds the question of whether there should be any reason other than tradition for thinking a wicket keeper cannot bat at five and a batsman at seven. Bairstow, after a record breaking year with bat and gloves, shows no sign of wanting to give up duties behind the stumps, but he remains the obvious choice to bat at five. Jos Buttler is a more natural seven, it seems to me. If it works, then fine, but I wouldnt object to Buttler taking over the gloves. Alternatively, Moeen could bat at seven and play as a second spinner behind Rashid. In the subcontinent, maybe, but the need for two spinners won’t occur too often elsewhere and do England really need six bowlers?

It seems harsh on Moeen, but it’s most likely he’ll find himself back at number eight – Chris Woakes, Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson as nine, ten, jack. Yes, it’s too low for Moeen, but it’s arguably for the good of the team – as Cook giving up the captaincy may well be, or Buttler taking over as keeper. There are some tough decisions to be made.

Cook got a fair bit of stick for a conservative declaration in Rajkot, but I remember being quite surprised and even fearful of a successful ODI-style run-chase. It was surely an indication of my low expectations for the tour. Nobody gave England a chance – least of all whoever was responsible for the schedule. But winning four out of five tosses should have helped. As should scoring 400 and 477 in the first innings in Mumbai and Chennai. And India had their own passengers. They also had some VIPs on board. Kohli and Ashwin were the main men, but at times Pujara, Vijay, Ravi Jadeja and Mohammad Shami, as well as KL Rahul and Karun Nair in the fifth Test, were too good for England.

India was good for me, too.

Better Flawed Than Bored

Ireland’s epic and wholly merited win over Italy on Wednesday was an excellent way to conclude what has been an entertaining if slightly confusing group stage of France ’16.

In trying to assess the quality of the tournament, the mind goes back to 2008 when, despite (or because of) England’s failure to qualify, the standard was unquestionably high. Much of that was down to the emergence of a truly great Spanish dynasty, but the Dutch and Russians were also very watchable. It wasn’t just easy on the eye, however, it was, being a 16-team tournament, easy to follow.

It would be easy to cynically view the expansion of the European Championships to include 24 teams as financially motivated, and it is tempting to say the group stages have been dominated by the narrative of attack v defence. As Michael Cox of Zonal Marking tweeted, “Can’t blame Slovakia, but parking 11 behind the ball for a 0-0 to secure 3rd in a four-team group isn’t what tournament football should be.” We are in danger of slipping into the elitism that Cristiano Ronaldo was so guilty of after Iceland had the temerity to celebrate an heroic draw against his Portugal, but there has been a whole bus depot on display in France.

At least there is no Super 8s, as there was famously in the 2007 Cricket World Cup, but the sense remains that there have been too many games for only a third of the teams to be going home. And then there is the fairness of the second round draw. I hadn’t bothered to look into the small print of the format so it came as a shock that Spain, second in their group, had to play Italy, first in theirs, while England, also a runner-up, were drawn against Iceland, third in their group. Equally, it seems harsh for table-topping Hungary to have to play Belgium, second in their group, when Wales get to play Northern Ireland.

Harsh but fair, I suppose – the luck of the draw.

The break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia has meant that there are simply more European countries, and when Holland don’t even qualify it suggests that the depth of quality is sufficient to justify the move to a 24-team tournament. Moreover, any misgivings over the format shouldn’t matter when the the status quo has been shaken up by Iceland, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Slovakia and Wales, and when the draw has meant that the final will be contested by at least one nation never to have won the trophy.

Perhaps the European Championships should expand further to include 32 teams. Along with the aforementioned Holland, the likes of Bosnia, Denmark, Greece and Serbia suggest that the quality might not be overly diluted, but it would mean another week onto proceedings and the chance of more dead rubber matches. Is it too radical to wish that there were two divisions of European Championships, both of 16 teams? Maybe, but for now 24 is preferable to 32. In short, better flawed than bored.

Which brings us to England.

England haven’t played better in a group stage – Euros or World Cup – since 2004. Yet there is much gnashing of teeth, much of it directed at Roy Hodgson’s decision to make six changes for the Slovakia game. Daniel Sturridge and Jamie Vardy, saviours against Wales, were bound to come in, and there was logic in resting the full-backs. The positions were nowhere near being nailed down coming into the tournament and the dependence on the full-backs to provide the width means that it is a taxing role. When so many tournaments have run aground on the rocks of fatigue, then it made sense – and was justified in Nathaniel Clyne’s performance, particularly. England have two Cafus. It is a squad game, and there was logic, too, in trying to get Jordan Henderson and Jack Wilshere involved. Henderson had an excellent first-half, sliding in Clyne down the right, putting in Vardy through the middle, having a cleanly-struck volley blocked. It was odd, however, that Wayne Rooney was rested, even more so when Wilshere looked so off the pace.

For all that England failed to score and had run out of ideas by the end, the changes to the team were not to blame. Nor, in a wider sense, was the draw with Slovakia to blame for England failing to top the group, the draw with Russia being much less forgivable. Then, 1-0 up, should have suited England.

There were other chances against Slovakia – Adam Lallana from Clyne’s pull-back, Dele Alli’s first touch, Sturridge almost benefitting from Eric Dier’s exquisite long pass – but Vardy’s chance seemed the most significant. It wasn’t just the best chance, the nature of it was typical Vardy, haring on to a lofted through-ball. It was a glimpse into the way England have to play if Vardy is to start. A way to play when 1-0 up, a chance spurned by Hodgson in the Russia game, and now missed by Vardy, hitting his left foot shot at the advancing ‘keeper. The dynamic of the game changed, Vardy barely touching the ball again. England need to remember that it would have changed even more if Vardy had scored.

More of the same can be expected on Monday against Iceland, and it is still hard to believe we are now complaining that we are failing to make the most of our dominance of possession. It has been interesting to hear the non-English view on the radio from the likes of Guillem Balague and Gabriele Marcotti, who have been bemused by the reaction to England finally being good enough on the ball to completely nullify the attacking threat of Gareth Bale and Marek Hamsic, to name two.

It is definitely an improvement on recent efforts. As 0-0 draws go, Slovakia was no way near as bad as Algeria in 2010. Frustrating, yes, but in a wholly more acceptable way. And there is also the hope that England score early. Hodgson is right to say England could give someone a thrashing, and there is no reason to fear a potential quarter-final against the hosts when Olivier Giroud and an ageing Patrick Evra will most likely be in the line-up.

As with the format of the tournament, with England it is better flawed than bored.

Talking of flawed, there seems to be a real lack of serious striking talent in France ’16. Sure, it hasn’t often been easy to showcase striking skills against a parked bus, but where is the new Marco Van Basten or David Villa? Gareth Bale and Alvaro Morata top the scoring charts, and Ronaldo showed against Hungary that he could yet define the tournament, but after that? France have Olivier Giroud. Germany have Mario Gomez. Italy have Graziano Pelle. England have Harry Kane, Marcus Rashford, Sturridge and Vardy, but who really knows which of those should start, and in what formation?

I blame Pep Guardiola and Jose Mourinho. Mourinho for his slavish adherence to 4-2-3-1 and its efficiency in transition from attack to defence. Nobody plays with two up anymore. And Guardiola for creating teams so good that they don’t need a number 9. Not many great strikers around at the moment. Not many great centre-halves, either.  Everybody wants to be a midfielder these days.

Anyway, the group stage has set things up nicely. It really is wide open. If only the same could be said of an England game …

 

Unlocking Roy’s Suitcase Full Of Riches

A week ago, France, courtesy of Dimitri Payet’s wonder-strike, beat Romania 2-1. Now, Spain have routed Turkey 3-0. Hopefully, Spain’s display is a sign of things to come, as the last-gasp nature of Payet’s goal was to be for week one of Euro 16. In this, for once at a major tournament (how many minor tournaments are there?), England, after beating Wales with a 92nd minute winner, are not behind the trend. France again left it late against Albania, as did Spain against Czech Republic and Italy against Sweden. Portugal drew with heroic Iceland, and Germany – eyeing England’s embarrassment of striking riches – drew a blank against Poland. Before the Spanish masterclass against Turkey, Italy’s comprehensive 2-0 defeat of Belgium had been the standout performance, with a hat tip to Croatia’s win against Turkey. On the evidence so far, no other team should hold too much fear for England.

What to make of England? There seems to be a consensus forming that Harry Kane and Raheem Sterling should be jettisoned for Daniel Sturridge and Jamie Vardy, the goalscoring saviours against Wales. When you consider Sturridge also assisted Vardy’s goal, it feels strange to be questioning this logic, but I’m not convinced it is as simple as that.

Vardy scored with his third touch. I can’t remember too many more in the remaining half an hour. To be fair, Sturridge had enough touches for the two of them, dropping deep in search of the ball … keeping the ball … shooting over the bar. Harsh, I know, and it came as a stark reminder as to how anonymous Kane had been in the first half, but perhaps it showed why there might be reservations about playing Sturridge up front on his own in a 4-2-3-1.

I didn’t complain when the same starting XI was named. Kane is the most natural fit in the squad as the 1 in a 4-2-3-1, and one duff game shouldn’t wipe away all that credit. Confusingly, England also have a real lack of depth in width. Even with all the attacking options to hand, Hodgson is sorely missing Danny Welbeck. Sterling, brilliant at times at the last World Cup, don’t forget, is a more natural fit out wide than Vardy. And there was always the threat of Wales – Bales – on the break. England were unlucky not to beat Russia. That they didn’t win comfortably might be down to Hodgson’s conservative substitutions, so it was good to see he wasn’t afraid to change things early – and positively – although what else he was supposed to do remains a mystery. England also played at a much better tempo in the second half, presumably on the manager’s bequest. That England left it so late shouldn’t matter. It was always going to be a singular game, all about the result. In the context of recent efforts, England are well placed. Hopefully not too many parked buses in the way.

In all the rightful praise that is going Roy Hodgson’s way, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the introduction of Sturridge and Vardy came, arguably, an hour too late into the tournament. England, 1-0 up against Russia, had played well, but it was clear that Kane and Sterling lacked sharpness and confidence, respectively. It made tactical sense, too – and not just in meaning that someone else could take corners. It was the ideal time to introduce the pace of Vardy. The new Darius Vassell.

Following the England games this tournament has so far been an odd experience. My pal Fraser’s wedding reception stuck to a media blackout for the Russia game, and a bunch of us watched it later into a slightly debauched night at my pal Joe’s. For the Wales game I was listening on the radio at work, watching the rain. I had precisely six customers during the game. As the old saying goes: When a man celebrates a goal in an empty shop on a deserted street, does it make a sound? Still, better than when Beckham had scored that free kick against Greece in 2001. I’d taken my TV to work, and, looking round for someone to celebrate with – to confirm that it was real – I was met by some old boy asking me who was playing. Unbelievable.

Watching the game later, knowing how it turned out, I was struck by just how limited Wales were, how unambitious. But, for all England’s dominance, Sterling’s miss was the only really clear cut chance. We will never know if Hodgson would have made the subs he did at half-time had it been 0-0 at the break, but Joe Hart’s error – letting a Welsh player jump up and down in his eyeline, obscuring his view of Bale’s free-kick – certainly forced his hand.

To the next hand, and how will England line up? If it’s Sturridge and Vardy in for Kane and Sterling, as is being presumed, in what formation? Vardy on the left? Two up front and a midfield diamond? A diamond with corners made of Dier, Rooney, Alli, and … erm? Wilshere? Lallana? Henderson? Not convinced, personally. Lacks pace and width, and it’s the same formation that stunk the place out against Portugal. Wilshere is a great player, but not in a four.  Lacking in match fitness, he’s never going to displace Rooney or Dier in the current line-up.

There is a more radical option. A way of playing two up front and not losing any width or getting rinsed in midfield. It involves going to three at the back. You know, like in Italia 90 and at times in Euro 96 and France 98.  Like Italy play. Like they played against Belgium. Kyle Walker and Danny Rose as wing backs. Get my man John Stones in a back three. A way of getting Michael Owen into the team can be a way of getting Vardy in the team. But it won’t happen. Maybe it should for the next qualification process, but not now.

So – Vardy on the left. Or maybe Rashford. Sounds odd, given his age and lack of experience in any position, but he might be a better fit. As impact subs go, Vardy could be pretty useful. As could England, really.

Only France and Spain have a better record of the teams to have played two group games. Spain, as well as being Spain, have, in Alvaro Morata, found a striker. France have Olivier Giroud. England have five strikers, if you count Rooney, which we should no longer. He has been great in midfield. It will be interseting to see if he can maintain those standards against better – or at least more ambitious – opposition. To a significant degree, it depends how Roy uses his “suitcase full of riches” – as Chris Coleman put it.

For what it’s worth, this is how I’d set England up for Slovakia and, if not to infinity!, beyond:

Hart

Walker – Smalling – Cahill – Rose

Dier – Rooney

Lallana – Allí – Rashford

Sturridge

Although I wouldn’t object to wheeling out this team:

Hart

Smalling – Stones – Bertrand

Rose – Dier – Rooney – Walker

Alli

Vardy – Sturridge

Use Your Delusion 1

I happened to watch Jack to a King – The Swansea Story on iPlayer the other day, unwittingly kicking off a feast of sporting documentaries that has included Leicester’s Impossible DreamEngland in the 90s, and Jimmy Hill: A Man for All Seasons. All of which were excellent, but the Swansea one is a particularly good story, well told – another welcome heart-warming tale in the cold-hearted world of professional football. It is also a reminder, in the cartoon villain Tony Petty, that we can produce our own unfit and improper persons to own football clubs, and, coming a few days after he was shown the door at Everton, it was interesting to get an insight into Roberto Martinez.

It was at Swansea that Martinez cut his managerial teeth, winning the League 1 title in 2008. And winning it in style. Even losing in style, according to Kev Johns, official hype man at the Liberty Stadium: “It’s very rare that you go home from a game that you’ve lost and you say ‘what a great game of football that was.'”

Rare for a reason, as Everton fans like my pal Joe will attest. Losing great – “phenomenal” – games of football wears a little thin after a while. Especially when the manager is seemingly unable and, most frustratingly, unwilling to arrest the slide by compromising his philosophy. Especially when Leicester – Leicester! – are winning the league.

Leicester winning the league has held up a mirror to the Premier League, showing up the stale sense of entitlement at so many clubs. Aside from Leicester, who else should Everton have finished ahead of? There has been a lot of talk of this Everton squad being the strongest since the glory days of the mid to late 1980s, but what does it matter when every other team, flush with TV money, can say the same?

And just how good is this current Everton squad? What if Tim Howard, Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines and Gareth Barry are no longer the players they were? What if John Stones and Ross Barkley are yet to be the players they will be? What if there is an over reliance on Romelu Lukaku? What if he’s not that much better than Luis Saha?

But expectations had been raised. Mostly, it must be said,  by Roberto Martinez. Firstly, by his actions – steering Everton to a fifth place finish and a record Premier League points haul in his first season – and then by his words. It is here, like Brendon Rodgers at Liverpool, where Martinez was the architect of his own downfall. Certainly, without Martinez’s guff about phenomenal progress, two cup semi-finals and a disappointing mid-table finish could have been more acceptable.

There is another telling moment in the Swansea film. 2-1 down to Hull in a game they needed to win to avoid relegation to the Conference on the last day of the 2000/01 season, Swansea striker James Thomas said this about his then team-mate: “If there’s anyone you want out on the pitch to try and gee you up and, you know, take the positives out of a bad situation, you know – Roberto Martinez.”

It seems a little jarring to be critical of ambition and positivity, but with Martinez, by the end, it bordered on delusion.

Talking of delusion, here’s a theory. It was inspired by Frankie Boyle’s latest piece in the Guardian, in which he wrote that he understood “Cameron saying he thinks Britain is still a great country (talking something up is a good way to get the best price when you’re selling it)”. Bill Kenwright has been trying to find an investor for ever. Perhaps it is no coincidence one was found during Martinez’s reign.

*

On the subject of Everton, I would like (somewhat ironically) to put up a defence for John Stones. In fact, he put up a pretty succinct argument in the home game against Spurs earlier this season, Cruyff turning his way out of trouble in his own penalty area. Having won a free kick, Stones gestured to the fans, who had been howling for him to get rid it of it, to calm down.

That the fans were howling says much of the attitude in this country to ball-playing centre-halves – and perhaps, more broadly, to skill and risk. When we’re not bemoaning the lack of ball-playing centre-halves, we’re yelling for our centre-halves to lump it in Row Z.

That’s not to say Stones shouldn’t be subjected to criticism, and Martinez had every right to drop him, but don’t lose sight of the fact that Stones is still only 21. And, as 3 centre-halves (ball-playing or otherwise) in the squad for the Euros suggests, the defensive cupboard is pretty bare. Gone are the days – I was going to say glory days, but they weren’t that glorious – of Rio Ferdinand, Sol Campbell, John Terry, Ledley King and Jamie Carragher vying for a starting spot.

Unless I’m guilty of swallowing Martinez’s hype, I’d play Stones in the Euros. Let’s face it, England are going to struggle defensively, whoever plays. Why not play Stones alongside Smalling? There is a case to be made that Stones’ game is better suited to the less hectic international game, and he will look a better player in a better team. Stones’ last cap, against Holland, should not be remembered for one slip when everything else he did was so compelling.