When Commentators Have Nothing To Write About

Wickman never goes anywhere without both...

There was so much chuntering in the commentary boxes of Headingly on Sunday night, throughout Monday and on through Tuesday that you would have thought that England had lost this mini-series against New Zealand.


Instead they have won it in some style in the end. The commentating fraternity had very little to do from Sunday evening onwards because Captain Cook had batted New Zeland out of the game and the series. England were 250 ahead with 9 wickets in hand, rain on the way and almost no chance they could find a way to lose against a visiting side that was fast slipping into depression.

Which meant they had to find something to write and talk about. So the debate turned not to whether or not England would win… but how they should do it. And then everyone got very exercised.

There were three basic opinions. Opinion 1 – mostly favoured by the blood and thunder merchants – was to make New Zealand follow on and grovel. Very tabloid. Very red top. Smash ‘em. Opinion 2 – bat on a bit – set the oppo about 350 because, frankly, they’ll never get ‘em. And there’s rain about. Very broadsheet... Guardian / Observer thoughtful. Opinion 3 is grind them into the dust, making the game and the series safe before making any other consideration. Stuff the critics. Stuff the public. We've a job to do and we don't need to win the game to do it.

No one liked opinion 3 apart from the England team and management. And some former captains who know the drill. And so they did bat on and on until the chance of an NZ victory was completely extinguished. The professional, belt, braces and another belt way to do things.

So the last 60 hours has been spent on this debate with everyone having their two pennies worth. Largely there were two sub camps: Camp one followers believe that England should kill NZ every time they play them. Camp two followers think England should play like kings. Be ruthless and less... er... English. And everyone has missed the point in Wickman’s not so humble view.

Back in the day – let’s say 1987 onwards – England were rubbish. They were rubbish for the best part of 18 years. Couldn’t beat anyone away and only occasionally beat teams at home. They improved enough to win the Ashes in 2005 and a couple of other series before collapsing again until 2009.

They’re now pretty good again following their fight back and win against the Indians. Although in the last 12 months they have lost a lot of tests and a couple of series – Pakistan have seriously tucked them up and South Africa annihilated them to the point where the team shattered and the captain resigned. Early this year we almost lost a series to New Zealand on some of the flattest pitches you are likely to see in Test cricket. Our second best batsman is injured. Our best bowler has been out for months and has only just returned. Our best batsman hadn’t had a good knock in a couple of months. We’ve got a couple of teenagers in the middle order (near enough) and an opening batsman that no one likes because he doesn’t smash it.

England is a good side – but it’s not good enough yet to start taking liberties. Not even against the Kiwis.  It has a strong professional management team that is innovating hard and making sure that no stone is left unturned. Flower is probably the best head coach in world cricket and in time will be studied by coaches from other sports you'd think. Flower (with the backing of the ECB) has instilled clarity of objectives. We want to win. We want to be the best team in World cricket. But Wickman's not sure he heard anyone say "we want to play like the Gods of yesteryear and brush everyone aside". Mores the pity. But it's not an objective that's been set, yet.

And Wickman is guessing that’s what motivated the safety first approach from Sunday onwards. Dominate the game. Check. Make the series safe. Check. Try and win the game. Check. Do the professional thing.

Wickman is happy enough with that. He wants to see England win, first and foremost. Perhaps the commentators have got different objectives…