Harry Brook is drowning in ego and arrogance – the only way he will stop believing in his own invincibility is by being dropped, writes IAN HERBERT
There was a time, on a very flat track in Rawalpindi not so many winters back, when Harry Brook telegraphed the very distinct sense that he would become a tornado in Test cricket.
His maiden century in brutal heat against Pakistan came on the day that England smashed cricket’s equivalent of the four-minute mile, with four batsmen thumping centuries on the same day.
The perspective and wise counsel that day came from David ‘Bumble‘ Lloyd, cautioning in his column for Daily Mail Sport that such benign pitches damaged the credibility of the long-form game. ‘Let’s be careful with Test cricket when it’s under such scrutiny and pressure,’ he wrote.
Brook, not unreasonably, didn’t see things that way. His 80-ball century, the nation’s third-fastest of all time, belonged to day on which England scored 506 from 75 overs, the most they have ever accumulated in a day’s Test cricket. ‘Peak Bazball’ you might say.
The reality in the heat of an Australian winter, or against any decent Test side, is materially different, of course, though Brook has become so carried away with the sense of his own invincibility that he has lost the capability to discern good ball from bad and bring a modicum of judgement. Three years on from Rawalpindi, he’s drowning in ego and arrogance.
Take your pick of any of the ludicrous, cocksure shots Brook has attempted this winter – the attempted scoop off Michael Neser, with Alex Carey standing up, 30 overs into the second innings at Perth, the fatal reverse sweep off Nathan Lyon in Adelaide.
Harry Brook has become so carried away with the sense of his own invincibility that he has lost the capability to discern good ball from bad and bring a modicum of judgement
Brook has attempted too many ludicrous, cocksure shots this winter – including this fatal reverse sweep off Nathan Lyon in Adelaide
All of them tell us that Brook, a man who has entirely swallowed the Brendon McCullum con trick, is pathologically incapable of seeing beyond his own nose and bringing intelligence and patience to his armoury of trick shots. His winter has been written through with hubris.
One of the responses that came when Matt Prior was despairing of Brook in Perth encapsulated it rather well. ‘Could you imagine how good Harry Brook would be if he had a brain?’ The notion of him as England’s vice-captain – supposedly carrying the team in the leader’s absence – has become laughable and the details which emerged on Thursday of his altercation with a nightclub bouncer in New Zealand, where he was leading the ODI side, bore out the deeply unattractive sense of entitlement.
Brook had been refused entry to a nightclub because security staff suspected he was drunk when he became involved in a row with a bouncer and was struck. He reported this to the England management. The third ODI took place the following day. Brook was out for six off 11 balls. England lost the match by two wickets and were beaten 3-0 in the series.
The men who have just led England through national humiliation in Australia clearly consider themselves untouchable now. But with England’s kamikaze philosophy exposed for what it really is, it is reasonable and necessary to ask whether Harry Brook’s high-risk batting justifies continued selection in Test cricket.
Whether he should be temporarily taken out of the side for a time, to rebuild his game into something sustainable and in keeping with the team ethic, rather than one designed to project the message. ‘Look at me. The great “I am.”’ The answer to those questions is most certainly ‘yes.’
Some will quote Brook’s position in the world Test batting rankings – second – and scoff at this suggestion, though some of England’s best have been taken out of the fire for a time and benefited from it.
Joe Root was dropped from the side for the final test of the 2013-14 Ashes series in Australia and has always said it fuelled his determination to succeed. Andrew Flintoff was suspended and stripped of the vice-captaincy after the pedalo incident of at the 2007 World Cup and seemed to be changed by the experience.
Brook is a man who has entirely swallowed the Brendon McCullum con trick and it is clearly hurting his game
It was revealed today that a boozed-up Brook had an altercation with a bouncer the night before an ODI against New Zealand back in November
The sight of Brook force-hitting while Jacob Bethell shrewdly and methodically accumulated his century in Sydney made him look like yesterday’s man and his numbers this winter, stripped of the hype and bravado, make uncomfortable reading.
No centuries and an average of 39.77, which is far below the requirement from a player occupying a pivotal middle-order role. While others have found ways to adapt – tightening shot selection, leaving well, absorbing pressure – Brook has largely persisted with the same template. The result has been fleeting cameos rather than defining innings.
Dropping Brook need not be punitive or permanent. It may actually be the most constructive step for both player and team. Time away from the Test arena could allow him to recalibrate: to develop a more selective early-innings game, prove he can succeed when bowlers dictate terms, and return with a method better suited to the demands of the genuinely competitive Test cricket. England do have depth.
Selection should reflect form and fitness for the task, not reputation. Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide and Sydney are where performance matters. Not a half-empty stadium in northern Pakistan.
