Time to drop Anderson and put faith in Archer
At Southampton, England’s selectors fell between stools. They did not start this summer with the old guard of James Anderson and Stuart Broad and a victory, nor did they call time on the record-breaking pair and start building an attack for the opening Test in Brisbane in less than 18 months – and winning the Ashes remains the chief objective.
The selectors have been handed on a plate a world-class fast bowler who scared the Australians last summer with his attack on Steve Smith at Lord’s, who was player of the match when England levelled the series 2-2 at the Oval, and who rattled West Indian teeth on the last afternoon at Southampton. But has Jofra Archer been installed as the leader of an attack designed to come to fruition in Brisbane in November next year? No, we are stuck in the Anderson and Broad era.
England are clogging up their system with two men who can still bowl economically but who are never going to feature in Australia. Anderson is 38 this month, Broad has just turned 34, and their strikerates are naturally declining. They are masters of economy, with the two best records in English Test cricket disguising the fact they are no longer strike bowlers.
England win in Australia when they have a great fast bowler to overcome the pitches, home advantage and batsmen who become national heroes if they defy the Poms: Harold Larwood in 1932-33, Frank Tyson in 1954-55, John Snow in 1970-71 – and, at reduced pace but no less intensity, Anderson in 201011, when he took 24 wickets.
The only exception since Larwood has been England’s victory in 1986-7, when the key was spinners Phil Edmonds and John Emburey, who took 33 wickets and conceded little more than two runs an over.
England’s attack should have been shaped around Archer already. He should be thinking like England’s attack leader and treated as such on and off the field.
If a criticism can be made of the era when Anderson and Broad were in their prime, it is that they did not respond when their captain had sent the opposition in, bowling too short and wide. Of the past four Tests when England’s captain has sent in the opposition, to exploit bowling conditions, England have lost three.
Archer, having been installed as leader of England’s “bowling group”, should have been consulted about the composition of the rest of the attack in Australia: he has not toured there with England but he knows the Test grounds, having represented Hobart Hurricanes. Nobody could better know Ollie Robinson, one of England’s reserves for this series, because he and Archer open the bowling for Sussex. Who else does Archer want in the attack: Robinson, or Craig Overton with his combative nature, or Saqib Mahmood with his reverse swing, or Warwickshire’s Henry Brookes?
As it is, while England wait for Anderson to retire, Archer is not being fully involved. Maybe it is being done with the best of intentions: we must not place too much responsibility on him as he is only 25. Let him grow into the role.
It might work in time but this approach runs the risk that Archer will not fully immerse himself in Test cricket, settle for a white-ball contract in a year or two, and spend his spare time in the Indian Premier League, the Big Bash and other Twenty20 tournaments, without any financial loss.
This show will go on until Anderson reaches his 600th Test wicket and is ready to retire. After three more in Southampton he has 587, and the media and public will insist he is given the opportunity. Cricket, however, does not like being treated as a game for individuals.