Cure for England's Winter Blues?

Saeed Ajmal and Rangana Herath. The names of England's two tormentors over the winter tests earlier this year. The Pakistan off spinner and Sri Lanka slow armer took 43 wickets combined over the 5 tests.

The failure to play the sub continent bowlers in their own backyards regurgitated the question as to whether or not the Number 1 test team in the world can rival the dynasties of the dynamic West Indies in the 80s or the dominating Australia of the 90s, both world beaters, both teams who were expected to white wash their opponents at the height of their dominance.

A winter where England lost 4 out of the 5 tests, were bowled out on every occasion bar the last innings vs Sri Lanka. A winter where England experimented with Samit Patel over Eoin Morgan against Sri Lanka, meaning going into the series England had two orthodox spinners in Swann and Panesar as well as the all rounder ability of Patel, an ability we didn't really see. A winter to forget for the England team and the Barmy Army.

Move forward to May and June and here we are with England leading a series 2-0, with two great performances from arguably the best bowling attack in international cricket, with two centuries from the so called “under fire” captain and a new resurgence which justifies being called the best team in the world. Yes, they are playing an underachieving new West Indies side but it takes something extra to break a partnership of nearly 200, to take wickets where the visiting batsmen have the team frustrated as well as the usually influential England fans.

The difference between now and the winter tests is that England are once again in front of their own support, in their own British weather conditions. They aren't playing on the flat, hard, dry pitches they played on in Dubai and Sri Lanka.

There is talk in the cricketing world that perhaps times have changed, maybe cricket could learn from footballing methods to conquer on foreign soil. In football the greater teams such as Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal when playing in the Champions League play different formations and personnel when away from home. An example being Manchester United, at home they traditionally play 4-4-2 but away switch to the more conventional 4-5-1, just the cram and control the midfield. With the same mentality cricket could benefit from this. For instance should England go away from home to India, why not play a team more suited to those conditions, maybe dropping batsmen like Trott or bowlers like Bresnan who are two of the most under rated players in the formidable home England team.

However, this idea would have to be finely balanced, the selectors wouldn't want to be constantly moving batsmen up and down the order. Also what would happen if England play 3 tests at home then 3 away within a short period of time and a player in the home team scores a hundred every time he comes to the crease? Would you have to drop him because he isn't in the away team or play him because he is clearly in good form? Being at the top of your sport is one thing but you want to stay there for as long as possible so perhaps this idea could be something worth thinking about.

Ryan Butler

How good is Scottish Rugby?

1982. When the HMS Conqueror sinks the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano. Channel 4 was launched in UK. And Scottish Rugby experienced their last taste of victory on Australian soil.

Tuesday 5th June 2012, that had all changed. Most of Britain was busy celebrating the jubilee weekend, Scotland national rugby side was celebrating too. But for different reasons. They had won against Australia 9-6 in a ranked international match re-writing the 30 year history.

The match it self was not the greatest advert for the global recognition. However, rugby fans, especially Scottish, will know what a good gritty performance the Scots performed, especially regarding Scotland nearly 3 months ago had achieved the six nations wooden spoon. Even with the Super Rugby season taking its toll, the Wallabies named a very experimental side and dreadful conditions. It was a world beating performance.

This raises the question that has world Rugby scratching their head. Why are Scotland ranked 12th in the international IRB rankings? Is this a nation that is waiting for the talent to explode into rage, or will the side self destruct under the pressure being pilled on them through media and quite clearly, themselves.

The two domestic sides. Edinburgh Rugby and Glasgow Warriors playing impressive rugby in their domestical RaboDirect PRO 2012 campaigns and European rugby With Edinburgh missing out on the Heineken Cup final , what would have made them the first Scottish team to participate in the final, by 4 points. And Glasgow Warriors finishing in the top 4 of the RaboDirect PRO league.

Again which raises the question, why is this not transferring to the national side? could it be confidence? Does Scottish rugby not know how to win? Or is it pressure through expectation?

In general, I believe this current Scottish rugby side will grow. With key players such as Stuart Hogg will hopefully win more caps and grow into his full back position, and winger Tom Brown making his debut for the national side. With more experience and class, Scottish rugby could possibly, cause upsets and bring back glory days since 1999 in which they won the last 5 nations tournament.

Stephen Orwin

Is winning enough for England?

With the Euro's only a matter of days away now England are going to the tournament unfancied, torn apart by injury and after France's latest win in midweek completely up against it.

However, with two very credible 1-0 wins under their belts Roy Hodgson's men should be going to Poland and Ukraine with a sprout of confidence in the camp. Any win away from home should be seen as a positive even if it is against a Norway side England should be beating. Considering Hodgson had only a few weeks to make up a prospective squad and get them into training, a win no matter how small the winning margin should be applauded.

Since the turn of the millennium England fans and the English media seem to be obsessed with performances over results. In an act of almost footballing snobbery suddenly football is decided on how a team plays not what the scoreline is. A prime example of this being Sven Goran Eriksson's tenure as England's head coach, he was always scrutinised for making more substitutions than he has fingers, for being the first foreign England head coach and for having an England side who weren't world beaters, a side who wasn't made up of the biggest and best players the world have ever seen but knew how to grind out a win.

And it was this basis which led England onto the brink of World Cup glory in the promised land of Japan and South Korea in 2002. Even though they only scraped a mere 5 points in Group F to finish second, after a convincing win against Denmark England found themselves in the quarter finals against a Brazil side who were world beaters. With a front line of Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho, England had to be resilient and with a head coach that has Serie A experience they were exactly that.

Ultimately the 2002 World Cup will be remembered in England for that goal by Ronaldinho. But yet had that goal not happened and England had managed to grind out another narrow win without playing exceptional, only Turkey and a Germany team who England had previously demolished on that night in Munich the previous year, would have been in England's way on the quest for their second World Cup trophy.

It may be hypothetical but had England found a way to get passed Brazil then England would have been the team to beat and would have probably gone on to win the tournament. Now a decade later, with two narrow wins and more importantly two clean sheets maybe, just maybe this could be the year England finally live up to all the hype. 


Ryan Butler