The ICC Champions Trophy 2025 is done and dusted. India have lifted the cup for the third time and they were a deserving winners. Now that the tournament is over, it is time for some honest reflection and forward planning, especially for England. 

England simply haven’t played enough 50-over cricket with this squad in recent times, and at crucial moments, it showed. In tight contests like those against Australia and Afghanistan, the lack of game-time became apparent. These matches are always decided by fine margins, key pressure moments, and England struggled to rise to the occasion.

The more you play together as a team in a specific format, the better equipped you are to handle pressure and seize key moments. It’s challenging when a squad lacks cohesion in 50-over cricket. While they’ve played plenty of T20 matches together, that experience doesn’t necessarily translate to success in this format.

Finding answers in the heat of the moment, when the game is on the line, is crucial. That’s something England must address moving forward as part of their planning. But when it comes to honest reflection, if England can truly assess themselves with clarity, there’s no issue—it’s the first step toward improvement.

England’s Plan A relied on pace—using it to dominate early, bring Adil Rashid into the attack, and take wickets in the middle overs. But it simply didn’t work. It failed in India, it failed in Pakistan. Having a plan is never the issue—the real problem was the lack of a solid backup strategy when Plan A fell apart.

There was no real Plan B—no effective way to take the pace off. England lacked a bowler like Sam Curran or someone who could play the role Nathan Ellis does for Australia or Mulder for South Africa. They needed someone to bowl wicket-to-wicket, slow things down, and shift the game’s tempo, but that option simply wasn’t there.

England’s approach became predictable, and when Plan A failed, they had nowhere else to turn. That lack of a backup strategy will be a key area for reflection. In the wake of a disappointing tournament, self-introspection is crucial. While scrutiny will inevitably fall on the captain, coach, and management, every player must take a hard look at their own performance.

Every player must reflect on their performance—what went well, what needs improvement, and how they can grow. Hopefully, this process takes place because it’s easy to brush off failure with a simple “it didn’t work, let’s move on.” But real lessons must be learned. Despite the disappointment, there were genuine positives—Ben Ducket, for instance, was outstanding at the top of the order.

Joe Root played beautifully, and at times, Jofra Archer rediscovered his rhythm and fluency with the new ball. Adil Rashid may not have had the tournament he hoped for, but with little support from the other end, the pressure was always on him.

Self-introspection is key. However, I don’t believe in outdated methods—endless net sessions or tough drills as punishment won’t fix deeper issues.

England have faced criticism for spending time on the golf course instead of in the nets. While I understand the concern, you can still discuss cricket while playing—but the real question is, are they? I truly hope England are using that time to reflect, talk through their performances, and find ways to improve.

Looking back at their game against South Africa, several players missed a big opportunity. Liam Livingstone and Jamie Overton had 20-30 overs to bat, but they couldn’t capitalise.

Players had a chance to make a real impact—to step up and say, the team may be struggling, but you can’t drop me now. England must carefully assess how they utilise their squad moving forward.

When given the opportunity to bat at 6, 7, or 8 with 20-30 overs left, players must seize the moment and make it count. That was another disappointing aspect England will reflect on.

Another key issue was England’s inability to break big partnerships in the middle overs. This proved costly, especially against Australia, when Josh Inglis and Alex Carey took control, and against Afghanistan, when Ibrahim Zadran and Omarzai built momentum.

England’s inability to break those crucial partnerships was a major turning point. It was one of the defining factors in their struggles. Looking back, they lacked an enforcer—a bowler capable of consistently creating wicket-taking opportunities when the team needed them most.

Another key issue was Jos Buttler batting out of position. I’ve mentioned it before, and I stand by it—it simply didn’t work. England’s best player batting at number six—it just doesn’t sit right with me. Jamie Smith’s selection felt like England were searching for answers on the fly.

It’s tough to be too critical of Brendon McCullum. He’s only just taken over, and there’s no doubt he’s an excellent coach—the right man to lead England forward. But going into a major global tournament, you need to have answers long before it begins, not figure them out along the way.

You need a settled batting lineup and a clear game plan—a strong sense of identity and rhythm before heading into a major tournament. Instead, England seemed to be experimenting, trying things out at the last minute. This isn’t new; England have a history of making sudden changes before big tournaments—dropping a captain, switching an opening batsman, or altering their strategy at the eleventh hour. These decisions should be made well in advance, not on the fly. This situation is slightly tricky because Brendon McCullum wasn’t in charge during the earlier planning stages. However, England had past tournaments to learn from.

Looking ahead, England’s management will have some influence over the planning process, but not complete control. One key challenge is their lack of 50-over cricket. They can request more matches in this format, but ultimately, scheduling and fixtures are largely out of their hands.

England will need to have a say in scheduling more 50-over cricket, but how much control they actually have remains uncertain. What they can control, however, is their strategy moving forward, and that will be crucial.

McCullum has clearly placed his faith in players excelling in Test cricket, and it’s hard to argue with that approach. He has introduced players like Duckett, Smith—those with a strong Test cricket foundation. The same goes for bowlers like Wood, Archer, Atkinson, who are regularly involved in the red-ball format, along with emerging talents like Jacob Bethell.

All of these players have been introduced to Test cricket, but the real challenge lies in managing player strategy effectively. Ideally, England needs its core players regularly competing in 50-over cricket, especially in bilateral series, to develop cohesion and adaptability in this format.

For long-term success, these players must learn how to play one-day cricket together as a balanced unit, rather than relying solely on Test cricketers adapting on the fly.

The challenge is that many of these players will be occupied with Test cricket. So how does England strike the right balance in their player strategy to allow their 50-over side to evolve over time?

One option is to continue relying on Test players and find ways to integrate them into the one-day setup despite their red-ball commitments. Alternatively, England could take a different approach—keeping Test specialists primarily in the longer format and instead focusing on developing a dedicated pool of one-day players.

These are crucial discussions for England moving forward—how they manage their squad, optimize their resources, and build a well-rounded team for 50-over cricket.

Having multi-format players is valuable, and England certainly wants them. However, the challenge lies in managing their workload—balancing rest, recovery, fitness, and rotation to keep players fresh and ready for each format.

Playing all three formats is demanding, and sustaining peak performance across them isn’t easy. England’s most successful period in one-day cricket, from 2015 to 2019, came when they had a dedicated ODI squad—one that played together consistently. That level of continuity was a key factor in their success.

There were a few exceptions, of course, but for the most part, England’s core team during that period consisted of one-day specialists. They played together consistently, experiencing both highs and lows, which ultimately led to their World Cup triumph in 2019.

Now, England must decide whether they want to return to that approach. It’s certainly an option worth considering.

When it comes to team identity, England has emphasized an ultra-aggressive, entertaining style of play. There’s nothing wrong with that approach—it has worked in the past—but the challenge is ensuring it remains effective in all conditions and against all opposition.

I admire England’s ambition to elevate the game and break new ground—it’s a bold and commendable approach. However, in key moments against Australia and Afghanistan, when they needed to take control and push forward, they hesitated. When the pressure was on, they couldn’t quite follow through.

Against Australia, they fell short—20 to 30 more runs could have made a difference. Against Afghanistan, they didn’t seize the moment against the new ball. This raises a crucial question: what is England’s true identity as a team? How do they genuinely want to play?

As for the captaincy, that’s another key decision ahead. McCullum has said they’ll take a long, hard look at it, possibly even considering someone outside the current setup. For me, the ideal choice is Harry Brook. The challenge with Brook is the weight of responsibility on young shoulders. But I believe he can handle it—he’s the best option. England could explore alternatives, such as Lewis Gregory, who has enjoyed success in domestic and franchise cricket. That’s certainly a viable route.

However, if it were up to me, I’d back Brook. Give him time. He’s a free-spirited leader with a strong group of players around him. With the right support, he could shape England’s future.

I will end my thoughts with a word on Buttler, the captain. I always felt captaincy would be a learning curve for him, something that would develop over time. Unfortunately, he didn’t have the luxury of growing into the role under more favorable circumstances.

It’s a bit of a shame because McCullum is an excellent coach, the kind of leader who could have helped him thrive. But ultimately, I believe Buttler took the right decision by stepping aside.

I can’t help but feel that if the Buttler-McCullum partnership had come together a bit earlier, it might have aided Buttler’s development as a captain. Perhaps with more time under McCullum’s guidance, things could have unfolded differently.

However, given the string of poor performances and disappointing results in this tournament, the decision for Buttler to step aside feels like the right one.