England v Bangladesh: 1st Test, Day 5 - DRS the Winner

 

England v Bangladesh: 1^st Test, Day 5

DRS the Winner

October 24^th 2016

There was something appropriate in the way that the match ended this morning. The end was swift – it took just 21 balls – it was brought about by Ben Stokes, who did so much to keep England in the match and it came courtesy of two reviews of decisions by Umpire Dharmasena, one overturned, the second upheld. In all, there were 26 reviews, 16 of them against Dharmesena, 8 of them upheld (including an extraordinary 3 in 6 balls). In contrast, only 3 of the 10 against Umpire Gaffney were upheld.

The lessons were that (1) it is tough being an umpire when the ball is turning a lot, Test umpires do not get a lot of experience of standing to over after over of spin with the ball turning a lot in oppressive weather (2) 25% of the wickets in the Test would have been wrongly given if DRS had not been available – it ensured fairness for both sides – and (3) making good and sensible use of reviews is a vital part of the game now. Each side made 13 reviews, although England were more successful, in part thanks to Moeen, in getting 7 decisions overturned to Bangladesh’s 4. That 7-4 ratio was almost certainly the difference between winning and losing.

DRS had a big impact in the result. Had Moeen Ali been given on the first day, England would probably have lost; Moeen though showed the value of judicious use of DRS by a batsman (Shane Watson please take note). Similarly, had England not had a review available on the last morning, Ben Stokes would not have made the vital early breakthrough. A million Bangladesh fans though will believe that the final dismissal – eerily reminiscent of the final wicket in the famous second tied Test in India – was wrongly given by both the on-field and third umpire and that the #11 was playing a shot and hence should not have been given out LBW. Probably it would have made no difference: with 23 still wanted and the last man in the sights of fresh bowlers, it was all but a lost cause, but Bangladesh fans will always wonder.

For Bangladesh, it was heart-wrenchingly close. Probably there was not a neutral in the world who was not pulling for them. It is not the first time: a defeat by a single wicket in Pakistan in 2003 when Bangladesh deserved to win; at this very ground in 2008 New Zealand were set 317 to win and got home by three wickets. And, what would have been the jewel in the crown: a narrow home defeat to the all-conquering Australians in 2006 in a game that Australia could so easily have lost.

Although the result takes England’s winning streak to nine, the likelihood of another lively pitch on Friday, combined with England’s final Test blues means that only a fool would put much money on England sealing the series 2-0.

For England, it is obvious that not all was well. Gary Ballance’s form is a real worry. The struggles of the top four are a real worry and the lack of control by the spinners, was a worry. There is also the not inconsiderable consideration that batting reserve, Hameed, spinning all-rounder, Ansari and bowling reserve, Steve Finn, have had very little cricket with no warm-ups to come in India.

There are multiple possibilities. The most likely are:

·         Rest two seamers – probably Broad and Woakes – and play Finn and Ball.  This would lengthen the tail by removing the valuable batting of Chris Woakes, but it would reward Jake Ball who proved such a success in the ODIs.

·         Rest a seamer – probably Woakes – and play Ansari instead. Events showed that having a third seamer was essential to engineering the Bangladesh collapses at the end of both innings.

·         Rest Rashid and play Ansari. This is an attractive option. Both spin from leg to off, but Ansari is a left-armer and would give a different line of attack. Adil Rashid had a brilliant ODI series, but has been frustratingly inconsistent in Tests. Here he took only three, relatively expensive wickets, the fewest of any of the front-line spinners in the match. However, you can also argue that Rashid will only learn by playing Tests and gaining experience and will surely be needed in India.

·         Play Ansari instead of Ballance. This would maintain the three seamers and give an extra spin option, without weakening significantly the batting. It would also give Ansari the debut that he would surely have had in the UAE last winter had he not been injured.

·         Play Hameed instead of Ballance. The top-order collapses cannot be ignored. Hameed’s fighting qualities would help provide solidity, as well as blooding him for the possible need to play him in India.

My preference would be to play Ansari instead of Ballance, without discounting the possibility of playing at least one of Ball and Finn. However, recovery and net form over the next couple of days may well be the deciding factors for the selectors.