New Zealand v England: 2nd Test, Days 1 & 2 - Dr Jekyll and Mr England

 

New Zealand v England: 2^nd Test, Days 1 & 2

Dr Jekyll and Mr England

March 31^st 2018

In the classic story, Dr Jekyll takes his potion and changes from his mild-mannered persona into the raging Mr Hyde. England swallowed a dose of Vince, Wood and Leach (it sounds like something that Macbeth’s witches would brew up) and, suddenly, if not the raging Mr Hyde, at least they transformed into something that looked like a proper cricket team. Mind you, there was a moment when Mark Wood was hammering the ball to all parts, when there was a bit of Mr Hyde and even more when Stuart Broad was hurtling in with the new ball, bowling with a pace and menace that he has not shown for a couple of years.

Having announced that Ben Stokes would not be fit to bowl and dropped Moeen and Woakes, everything indicated that England would play Overton instead of Vince. Bemusement would a mild way of expressing the reaction to the news that Overton had been replaced by Vince in what appeared to be a four-man attack. The fact that neither Woakes nor Overton have looked like taking wickets meant that both were luxuries who would only play a holding role to rest Broad and Anderson. In that sense it was a sensible decision to try to add some bite to the attack. Woakes’s fall from grace since his triumphant summer has been complete.

When you are put in on what seems to be an excellent batting pitch, it can only be because the opposition fancies its chances of imposing another embarrassment on a batting line-up that seems to lack all confidence. . The decision seemed to be justified and everything following the script, when Alistair Cook fell cheaply… again and James Vince got a start and gave it away… again. 6-1, 38-2 and a strong sense of “here we go again”. Why Vince was preferred to Livingstone is a mystery to all but the team management – surely England would have learnt more by trying-out a second debutant? At the same time, what does one make of Alistair Cook’s sequence? His last 18 Test innings have been 10, 243, 11, 23, 10, 17, 2, 7, 37, 16, 7, 14, 244*, 39, 10, 5, 2 & 2. When he gets a start, he is a run machine, but there is no score between 39 and 243! Are Cook’s powers waning? Or are two big double centuries worth a number of failures? Over the last 12 months he averages only a fraction under 40, which is a much better number than many of his colleagues, but more than half his runs have been in just two of his twenty-five innings, meaning that the opposition frequently starts with the huge boost of his wicket falling quickly.

Further traditions were honoured. After a dodgy start, Mark Stoneman seemed to be on the point of the breakthrough innings that he needed. And Joe Root, back at 4, owed England a big score. Fifty partnership with increasing comfort – could this be Stoneman’s big day? Could Root turn a fifty into a century? Not a bit of it! In the space of nine balls England slipped from a relatively comfortable 93-2 to a punch-drunk 94-5, with the wolves baying for blood. Two more batsmen had made a start and given it away.

On this occasion, England did not disintegrate. Freed of the malign influence of Todd Astle’s long-hops, Jonny Bairstow was able to remember that he is a very fine batsman. A fifty partnership with Stokes, another mini-collapse and then Wood and Leach suggested that, in the second innings, both will bat ahead of Stuart Broad. Wood showed the benefit of having a crazy horse keen to catch the eye in the side, by flogging tiring bowling to all parts. Even when Wood fell to the last delivery before the new ball, Leach showed that he is a much better bat than he was when he came into the Somerset side. In the end, 307ao was disappointing only because one thought that Bairstow, Wood and Leach were batting so well that 350 was within reach.

307 looks like 500 when the opposition is 17-4 and Stuart Broad is bowling like a demon with pace and fire. Tradition though was respected and England allowed the New Zealand middle-order to recover in the same way that their own had. However, with a wicket just before the Close, an end open and the new ball due, New Zealand's tail will need to weather Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson a lot better than their top order did. And, surprise! It was not a four-man attack: Ben Stokes has had a short spell and had a couple of good shouts and, always assuming that he has no reaction, will be lying in wait in case Broad and Anderson cannot do the job on their own (so far the four opening bowlers have all sixteen wickets in this Test).

With Jack Leach bowling nicely and the occasional ball turning big, a first innings lead of 70-80 will look like a mountain to New Zealand. If England can set 300, Jack Leach may well be the key to winning, with attacking fields and pressure on the batsmen. One can dream…

Meanwhile, in the Champion County match, Jack Leach’s partner in crime at Taunton, Dom Bess, was taking eight wickets and scoring a century. Moeen Ali may have watched this development with some concern because next Winter’s tour is to Sri Lanka and there is every chance that Leach and Bess will team up there as if it were just another day in Taunton. With England looking at the possibility of almost any combination of Cook, Stoneman, Gubbins, Robson and Hameed opening against Pakistan in May, it is quite possible that the England side could have a very different look to it come October. There is also the option that the top three in Sri Lanka *could* be Gubbins, Hameed and Jennings, with Jennings dropping to #3 where some think that he may be more successful. There is talent there. There are options. At present Gubbins is injured and Hameed and Jennings are short of runs, but a good start to the season for them could see the current top three following the first squad announcement of the summer very nervously.

New Zealand v England: 1st Test, Day 5 - Defeat, in a Match that Could and Should Have Been Saved

 

New Zealand v England: 1^st Test, Day 5

Defeat, in a Match that Could and Should Have Been Saved

March 28^th 2018

When you are 300-6 with about 30 overs left and have two, well-set batsmen, one on 66*, the other, 38*, the partnership nearing 100, the ball is no longer new and there is significant batting still to come, you would normally believe that the batting side has a very good chance of saving the match. Once again the culprit was a silly shot on the stroke of a break. Once Stokes gave his wicket away, the end was mercifully quick and 300-6 became 320ao. Yet again, there was a feeling of what might have been.

However, all the familiar failings were there. Four batsmen scored fifties, but three of them fell immediately on reaching fifty (scores of 55, 51 and 52) and the fourth fell for 66: no one could go on to on to a big score. Two of the batsmen who made a fifty fell to the last ball before an interval. Apart from Cook, no one earlier than 9 in the batting order fell for fewer than 23 – so everyone got a start – but no one went on to make the sort of score that would have saved the match. It was a matter of systematically getting in, making a start and getting out before making it count. Symptomatic of this was Jonny Bairstow, who provided Todd Astle with his first Test wicket for six years with a wild shot to a long-hop, just a few deliveries after having been missed horribly by Trent Boult slogging wildly at another long hop: what Geoff Boycott must have been saying while watching, does not bear thinking about.

Other traditions were observed too. After some encouraging performances in the ODIs that one hoped would kick-start his winter, Moeen Ali could offer neither runs with the bat, nor control with the ball. And, after England’s bowlers had bowled manfully, but with little threat for 141 overs, the pitch looked different when New Zealand bowled on it (how familiar this was from the Ashes Tests!) This has, possibly, been the most disappointing aspect of the winter so far (“so far”, because it may yet get worse): England were expected to use the conditions extremely well in both day-night Tests but, both at Adelaide and at Auckland, have been comprehensively out-bowled.

While the primary responsibility for defeat rests in that first innings of 58ao, it is not beyond the point that they bowlers did not exactly shine, themselves. Only when Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad – the latter, mostly unheralded, but went at just over 2-an-over for 34 overs and took three wickets – were bowling did Joe Root have any sort of control. Overton, Woakes and Moeen Ali had combined figures of 75-17-236-1. In contrast, in the second innings, the New Zealand support bowlers had 72.1-26-156-6: the difference in the threat posed was massive and meant that, while Anderson and Broad had to pound out 63 overs, Boult and Southee bowled just 53 in that second innings – an important difference when playing back to back Tests.

For the 2^nd Test, England evidently are going to make two changes, possibly three. Things will depend to a degree on the fitness of Ben Stokes. If he is fit to bowl his share of overs, there will be room for an extra batsman. If he is not, England will have their options more limited by the need for an extra bowler that would lengthen the tail.

That Jack Leach will come in for Moeen Ali is taken as almost certain. Leach took 18 wickets in the three unofficial Tests v West Indies A. Leach is a genuine tail-ender, although he batted as high as #8 for the Lions, albeit in a line-up with a very long tail, and is beginning to show some notions of knowing which end of the bat is which (he batted for 98 minutes, mostly in company with Mason Crane as the Lions tried to avoid an innings defeat in the 2^nd Unofficial Test). England have to take the plunge with Leach at some time and there are still many who think that, despite the issues over his action, he should have been in India last winter and, definitely, should have been in Australia.

That Mark Wood will replace, probably, Craig Overton, is another more than likely change. He averages nearly 41 with the ball from his ten Tests, but adds something of an X-Factor that has been sadly missing for England by being around 10km/h faster than anyone else in the attack. At Auckland, England had four right-arm, medium pace seamers, all bowling in the low-80s (MPH) and an unthreatening spinner: as was said of one particular England attack in the early ‘80s, “the captain could change the faces and change the ends, but not change the bowling”. There is a line of reasoning that Chris Woakes could make way instead but, his superior batting is likely to save him, given that the tail will, inevitably, be lengthened by dropping him. Mark Wood has a similar level of capability with the bat to Overton, so the change would not weaken significantly the tail.

If Stokes cannot bowl, the attack would be Anderson and Broad with the new ball, Wood as first change and, probably, Woakes relegated to fourth seamer, with Leach as spinner. The tail would long, with Woakes, Wood, Leach, Broad and Anderson from 7 to 11. In this case, Joe Root would stay at #3, with a top order of Cook, Stoneman, Root, Malan, Stokes & Bairstow.

In contrast, if Stokes can bowl, there is a real possibility that an even more radical change could be made, with Liam Livingstone coming in at #3, Joe Root dropping down to his favoured place at #4 and, most likely, Woakes missing out. This would allow England to play the extra specialist batsman to compensate for the lengthened tail and Malan to go back to his favoured place at #6. In this case, the XI would be: Cook, Stoneman, Livingstone, Root, Stokes, Malan, Bairstow, Wood, Leach, Broad & Anderson. England would play two debutants and recall a player who has be absent for nearly two years, as well as making two positional changes. That would certainly be enough for the pundits and the fans who are calling for radical changes.

Either way, England would field a better-balanced attack and will look at least two players who can provide new options, both for the summer and, looking ahead to next winter when two and maybe three spinners will be needed in the XI. The preferred way to go would undoubtedly be the option with Stokes taking a full part in the attack, if only as fifth bowler. Stokes’ back problems towards the end of his innings appear to have been only due to muscles complaining over unaccustomed effort after months of reduced activity. Asking him to bowl would be a calculated risk, especially with Wood’s long history of injury but, with Root, Malan and Livingstone all competent emergency spin options, England may feel that they have enough bowling cover available.

Either way, England cannot afford another defeat.

 

Meanwhile, in another galaxy, far, far away, Smith and Warner have received a one-year ban and Cameron Bancroft, nine months. Smith will not be considered again for the captaincy for two years and Warner, never again. As more details come out, the suspicion is that David Warner has been the worst offender: he will never again be considered for the captaincy and, one suspects, may have a hard job to win his place back in the side.

However, there is one item that I find unacceptable and that the apologists should too and that is the systematic lying of Bancroft. Even when he “confessed” he lied, when he would have received far more sympathy had he come out straight and said, “yes, it was a piece of sandpaper”. First he claimed it was a black cloth. Then yellow tape that he had covered with dirt. At no point has he admitted to what it really was… sandpaper! The attempt to cheat was clumsy and stupid. The cover-up was even clumsier and more stupid. And the systematic lies take the biscuit.

If Somerset do not revoke Bancroft’s contract, the sledging and abuse that he will receive from players and fans will be epic; it will be a massive on and off-field distraction to Somerset and will reinforce the suspicion – remember the raking of the Taunton pitch before the Middlesex match – that Somerset are willing to push the definition of fair play a little too far towards the limits.

As any proud Bristolian does, even though I was born on the Gloucestershire side of the river (by a couple of hundred metres), I claim Somerset as well and take pride in their successes, although Gloucestershire has been my county as long as I have followed cricket. I want to see Somerset win the Championship in 2018 as a retirement present for Marcus Trescothick, but I want to see them win it clean, without suggestions of sharp practice.

New Zealand v England: 1st Test, Day 4 - The Clock Ticking for Cook and England, While a Bomb Explodes Under Australia

 

New Zealand v England: 1^st Test, Day 4

The Clock Ticking for Cook and England, While a Bomb Explodes Under Australia

March 25^th 2018

Despite the fact that only thirteen balls were possible on Day 3, the match situation had not really changed: Day 4 was simply a matter of how long New Zealand would bat before declaring and how many they would set England to avoid an innings defeat.

When you have only scored 58 in your first innings, to bat again needing 369 to avoid an innings defeat or, what is the same, to survive 145 overs, is the toughest of assignments. Assuming that they score at 3-an-over on the 5^th Day, England will not knock off the deficit until just 19 overs remain to play. That would mean effectively leaving New Zealand no more than 4 or 5 overs maximum to chase, if they are to avoid defeat.

However, after the events across in Cape Town, to see a match in which the only issue has been the battle between bat and ball, has been a refreshing change. And when Trent Boult produced a brilliant last over, just as England’s hopes were rising of mounting an astonishing 5^th Day escape, no one in the press conference afterwards asked him about what grade of sandpaper he recommends using to rough-up the ball.

Many things can be said of England, but the total lack of any threat posed by the England bowling in this Test shows that ball-tampering is not one of them. The biggest disappointment of the Test is to see how England’s much-vaunted seamers, who look so good in England, have been made to look so second-rate by the New Zealand seamers, who have been so superior.

Unfortunately, even if England do somehow escape, their questions about the side have scarcely been answered. Alistair Cook fell cheaply again. Scores of 5 & 2 are not going to answer the doubts that he has the appetite to continue to score big Test runs on a regular basis. Since the start of the winter tour he has only reached 50 twice, one of them in the Townsville knockabout, the other, his monumental 244* in Melbourne. In 11 of 17 innings he has reached double figures, yet he has rarely made it count. Runs last summer and runs at Melbourne have left him with plenty of credit in the bank, but the suspicion is growing that his international career may not have much longer to run.

Similarly, his opening partner, Mark Stoneman has also left the big question unanswered. This is his 9^th Test. After being one of only two batsmen to get into double figures in England’s sad first innings, he scored a gritty 50 here – his fourth in Tests – only to give it away immediately. Nothing can hide the fact that, despite 4x50 in Tests, his highest score is only 56, his Test average, 27 and his First Class average is only 35. One suspects that only a century in the 2^nd Test will save his career and that if either Nick Gubbins or Sam Robson starts the season well, one or other of them will open with Alistair Cook against Pakistan at Lord’s on May 24^th. With several rounds of Championship matches before that 1^st Test, there will be opportunities for a batsman to put down a marker.

With Stoneman and Root batting comfortably, England seemed to be starting to wriggle free. This looked like the opportunity that Stoneman had been waiting for to make a century and to settle arguments about his place. He was confident enough to reach his 50 with a big six, before giving it away in the most Vince-like fashion. Come May, he may live to rue that shot.

With James Vince apparently defenestrated, the second burning question was about Joe Root at 3. Could he make a success of it? A double-failure for Root in this Test, combined with a fit Ben Stokes, could just have seen James Vince make a comeback in the 2^nd Test. Root also reached his fifty just before the Close and looked increasingly comfortable until Trent Boult ratcheted-up his pace and hostility in his last two overs before the Close. It did not take Mensa-like intelligence to work out that if England reached the Close two-down with Root and Malan batting well, their chances of survival start to grow considerably.

Root fell for a two-card trick and, possibly, his own need to show that he would not retreat under any circumstances. When Boult hit his bottom hand a wicked blow with the fourth ball of the last over of the day, Root decided to bat on after treatment when a more pragmatic approach would have been to retire hurt. Had he done that, the umpires would have signalled the Close. Root though is tough enough to check out of hospital and come out to bat even when evidently in no fit state to do so. Glove back on. Take guard again. Wicked bouncer. Gloved to the ‘keeper. 94-1 and beginning to get out of the mire had become 132-3 and a renewed struggle to take the game even as far as Tea tomorrow.

Ben Stokes will have one ball of the over to survive from a fired-up Boult in the morning before he and Malan have to set about blunting the attack.

Escape is unlikely. It will need yet another big innings from Malan, supported by runs from Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen Ali and Woakes to pull it off. But then, hope springs eternal and that is why hundreds of thousands of fans will tune-in after midnight… just in case.

What to make though of events in South Africa?

When the series started it looked brutally one-sided. In the 1^st Test Australia were all over South Africa and looked set to win comfortably, as they had done in previous series in South Africa. The change in the 2^nd Test though was as big as it was unexpected. What set off the change was a series of controversial incidents, including on and off-field confrontations between players and then between players and crowd. As the series heated-up, the crowd became more and more hostile and suddenly the Australian team discovered that getting it back is nothing like as enjoyable as handing it out without fear of reprisal and have increasingly lost focus.

Over the years the Australian team has based much of its success on the idea that visiting teams should be abused as much as possible on and off the field. This has included the request from Darren Lehmann for the public to target Stuart Broad and to make his life hell. While, of course, neither coach nor players can control barracking and abuse from the crowd, nor such tactics as setting off the fire alarm in the visiting team’s hotel during the night, or waking players with early morning telephone calls requesting radio interviews, nor have they done anything to condemn such behaviour. They regard it as part of the hospitality service to be offered to visiting teams, while crude, on-field, personal abuse is regarded as necessary to play the game in the right spirit.

When Darren Lehmann said that the abuse that his players were receiving had “crossed the line” there was a certain irony to his comments given what many players have received from Australian players and crowds without censure. As one broadcaster and writer on the English game pointed out, “the line” seemed to be positioned wherever was most convenient for Australian interests at any given time.

What this series – and others – has shown is that when a side refuses to be intimidated by Australian aggression and starts to give it back, the Australians lose focus and can disintegrate themselves.

However, do we really want world cricket to turn into a contest to see which set of players and its fans can be most yobbish? England can smirk, but they themselves have been involved in some distasteful incidents in the past.

There are many alarming aspects of the latest incident. All sides push the limits when they can. All sides resort, at least occasionally, to tactics that are dubious or are gamesmanship. And all sides do like their home support to give them a hand. And, of course, it is different when they are on the receiving end rather than handing it out. Not all sides though sit down and have an open, tour management discussion on how best to cheat when things are not working on the field. And yes, it was cheating when other sides have done it and it is cheating when Australia do it too.

There are still many aspects of what happened that are unclear. Surely neither Cameron Bancroft nor the captain seriously believed that no camera would pick up their attempts to rough-up the ball.  How believable is the story that it was some dirty sticky tape that had been used on the ball? Plenty of people watching the images saw something that looked much more like sandpaper, which would surely be far more effective anyway than some dirty sticky tape. Have the players actually come clean even now? How much did Darren Lehmann know and have to do with the plan?

As in the case of Watergate, the original crime was not such a bad one – the umpires did not even change the ball, considering that its state had not been altered – but the clumsy and incompetent cover-up made it infinitely worse. Bancroft’s comic attempts to hide the evidence and willingness to lie to the umpires when challenged, made things far worse than if he had come straight out and confessed. The intention was to damage the ball, even if the execution owed more to Monty Python than to Professor James Moriaty. And, of course, video has come to light of Cameron Bancroft apparently doing something underhand in the dressing room during the Ashes series, meaning that he is now marked with previous.

As a Gloucestershire supporter, I am very glad that Mr Bancroft will not be representing my county this summer and I know that other Gloucestershire fans feel the same. The fall-out is only starting. Bancroft has signed with Somerset, who have put out a statement to the effect that the decision on his contract is under review. Certainly, if Bancroft were to come to Somerset, his reputation would precede him and would be a major on and off-field distraction. Bancroft’s position in the Australian side is far from secure (despite runs in this Test, his average is hovering just over 30 after 8 Tests) – hence perhaps his willingness to play along – and it would be easy to drop him on the pretext of not scoring enough runs.

There are loud calls for Steve Smith to be stripped of the captaincy. Probity as captain of your national team is important: Mike Atherton got away with it, probably because he had a reputation as a decent person and captain who had made a bad mistake, but Keith Fletcher, Mike Gatting and Andrew Flintoff, quite rightly, did not and Ian Botham’s off-field antics ensured that he was never given a second chance. However, there are rumours that Cricket Australia are so horrified by the negative publicity generated by the whole affair and the fact that it was so pre-meditated, that they are considering life bans for Smith and Warner. As a legendary South African captain of the end of the 20^th Century found out: you cheat, you get caught, you face the consequences. Not too many Boards are willing to overlook such matters in the face of public opinion.

In the English language the word “cheat”, or an accusation of cheating, has huge emotional consequences and the word has been used a lot to describe what happened. In the infamous Shakoor Rana incident with Mike Gatting, the trigger was the umpire observing Gatting move a fielder behind square, where the batsman could not see the change, stopping play (no “dead ball” call though) and, telling Gatting that he was a cheat (the English version) or, in the umpire’s version, “you are making unfair play”. The word “cheat” inflaming passions to the point that Gatting snapped.

If Smith and Warner do go, it will be a massive blow to the Australian side, but would be a huge PR coup, showing that after all, Australians do want to win by fair means and not foul. It also remains to be seen if Darren Lehmann can ride out this storm: his position would become very difficult.

The remainder of the South African tour is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, anyway. How do you recover from an issue of this kind? And let us not forget that Australia tour England this summer for an ODI series and that Smith and Warner (and conceivably, Bancroft) would form part of that touring squad.

World Cup 2019 - How Does The ICC Manage Simultaneously To Get Things So Right And So Wrong?

 

World Cup 2019

How Does The ICC Manage Simultaneously To Get Things So Right And So Wrong?

March 23^rd 2018

Today, we have seen the end of a wonderful tournament, apart from a rather irrelevant Final, which has all the cards to be a depressing anti-climax. The World Cup Qualifying Tournament in Zimbabwe has seen drama to the last ball and at least one match was played in a packed stadium, with closed gates. It is believed that the Zimbabwe v UAE game, that could have seen Zimbabwe qualify, is the first time that the ground has been full to its 22000 capacity to the point that the ground authorities have had to close the gates: and that, to watch the UAE play!

For once, the ICC has got something absolutely, totally right. Instead of pitching a group of Associates into the World Cup based on rankings – themselves calculated from a handful of games – they have matched the weakest Full Members and the strongest Associates in a qualifying tournament, with a feeder tournament that allowed smaller teams a route to a potential World Cup match with India or Australia at Lord’s.

The great winner of the feeder events was probably the romantic story of the tournament. In 2008, two of the sides buried in Division 5 of the World Cricket League were Afghanistan and Nepal. While Afghanistan’s rise was meteoric, Nepal’s, handicapped by a chaotic administration and the after-effects of the catastrophic earthquake, has been slower, but steady. In February, they were in Namibia for Division 2 of the World Cricket League, with its prize: a place in the World Cup Qualifying Tournament.

Only the top two of Canada, Kenya, Namibia, Nepal, Oman and UAE were going to qualify. In a blanket finish, four of Nepal’s matches went to last-over finishes: three of them were won in dramatic fashion (two by a single wicket, capped by an astonishing win against Canada), while the other, allowed UAE join the triple-tie for second and reach the qualifying tournament on Net Run Rate. For the Nepali cricketers, playing against sides with a World Cup tradition like Kenya, Namibia and Canada must have felt amazing; to top the table and have a chance to play against Full Members must have made the players feel that they had died and gone to heaven. Nepal only won two matches, but their victory against Papua New Guinea, to place Nepal in the seventh place play-off game, gave them ODI status for the next four years. For a small, poor country in Asia, this achievement has given the players and their country an incredible pride and self-belief. Nepal may not reach the heights that Afghanistan have, but do not bet against them becoming Full Members in a decade or so: Afghanistan have shown them that it is possible.

Teams currently in Division Five of the World Cricket League include Jersey, Germany and Ghana. They have seen how two, former Division Five sides have now risen to Full ODI status and know that the dream is possible. Like the pyramid in English football that allows a pub team to aspire one day to reach the Premier League, teams such a Norway, Germany, Surinam or Brazil can develop and grow and one day, maybe reach the World Cup itself. That is a magnificent development for cricket.

The World Cup Qualifying Tournament has seen drama from start to finish. In one of the early games Afghanistan’s last pair failed by just three runs to topple Zimbabwe. After three successive defeats, Afghanistan needed Zimbabwe to beat Hong Kong and then to beat Nepal themselves and, finally, for Nepal to surprise Hong Kong, just to get into the Super Sixes. They also needed the margins in the three games to turn out right to ensure that Nepal and Hong Kong both stayed behind on Net Run Rate. It was like putting one coin in the slot machine and winning the jackpot.

However, with teams carrying forward their points from other qualifiers in the group, Afghanistan started 2 points behind Ireland, 3 behind Scotland and Zimbabwe and 4 behind the West Indies. They had to win all three Super Sixes match and then have other results fall for them. Zimbabwe only had to beat an outclassed UAE in their final match to eliminate Afghanistan. UAE had not looked like challenging any of the other Super Six sides. Even when Duckworth-Lewis modified the target to 230 from 40 overs, Zimbabwe’s massive experience and array of talent should have knocked the target off easily: maybe they were over-confident but, somehow, they fell just short and Afghanistan lived… just. Even then they had to beat Ireland.

So, everything came down to one, last game. Ireland v Afghanistan – the winner would qualify for the World Cup. However, if the match were rained-off (and several games, especially in the warm-ups, had suffered very badly), Ireland would lead a quadruple tie on 5 points on Net Run Rate. There was though another scenario and, as the chase got tighter and tighter, it started to raise its head: a tie would put Zimbabwe through on Net Run Rate.

In the end, a single, poor over from Durham’s Barry McCarthy was probably the difference between the two sides. It went to the last over… just, but that one over gave Afghanistan momentum in a chase that seemed to be slipping away. Cricket can be cruel.

Here, the crass stupidity of the ICC shone through. We had had a brilliant tournament, with some good cricket played, passion and support from the fans, but the dictates of a smaller tournament meant that only two of West Indies, Zimbabwe, Scotland, Ireland and Afghanistan, all of whom have played some superb cricket, could qualify.

The ICC has rightly been condemned for ridiculously long tournaments in the past (the World Cup in the West Indies seemed to last for ever). And for some pretty silly formats. They have also fiddled with the format time and again to try and ensure that never again will India or Pakistan fail to reach the second phase (too expensive in lost TV rights). They have had tournaments in which a side such as Australia only needed to beat The Netherlands and Namibia to reach the second phase. If there are too many teams, we have too many meaningless and unattractive matches and a tournament that seems to imitate the Hundred Years War.

That said, the smaller teams need to play the bigger teams to evolve and improve and need to play several games, not just one. That is what has been wonderful about the World Cup Qualifier. And, for the West Indies and Zimbabwe it has been a reality check: it is all very well for Jason Holder to talk about winning the World Cup, but they only barely beat Scotland on D/L, lost to Afghanistan and were pushed very hard by Zimbabwe – that is not the sort of form to strike terror into India, or Australia… or even England.

The ICC has gone from one ridiculous extreme to another. While a sixteen-team World Cup is too many at present (although the gap in the eight teams below the top eight is closing rapidly), to have just ten teams is too few. Twelve would have been a reasonable compromise and, on this scenario, Scotland and Zimbabwe would have joined the West Indies and Afghanistan in the World Cup.  With three groups of four, the top two and the two best third place sides qualifying for the Quarter-Finals, the tournament would be compact and there would be a chance of one or more of the qualifiers making the knock-out stages. Add a Plate Tournament for the sides that do not reach the Quarter Finals and each team is guaranteed a minimum of four matches, but there would be just twenty-eight matches in all.

New Zealand v England: 1st Test, Day 2 - Rain Simply Prolongs the Agony

 

New Zealand v England: 1^st Test, Day 2

Rain Simply Prolongs the Agony

March 23^rd 2018

In England’s current situation, not even selecting Noah and making him captain would be likely to save them. In fact, even two days of solid rain will not save England in this Test: you would bet a lot of money that four full sessions of play will be enough for New Zealand to wrap up the game. However, Moeen Ali made a contribution to the match far more vital than his duck yesterday, by provoking a downpour as soon as he came on to bowl. These abilities would be much-appreciated in certain drought-stricken regions and have brought some respite for England but, in the 90 minutes of play that were possible, it became obvious that those who thought that England could take a wicket or two before the new ball and then two or three more with it were just fantasists.

Kane Williamson batted on slowly and steadily to his century before finally falling to Jimmy Anderson, who is already looking a good bet for a 5-for, albeit one a tad more expensive than Trent Boult’s was. New Zealand are doing nothing flashy: the runs are being ground out at 2.5 an over; there is no need to hurry unless the weather gets a lot worse. In two sessions more the lead will be well over 300 and New Zealand will be able to decide when to declare at their convenience. That is the advantage of having bowled out the opposition in under an hour and a half in the first session of the match. The forecast looks dodgy for Day 3, but then better for Days 4 & 5, when time can be made up. Everything suggests that England have just two chances in this game: slim and fat.

Kane Williamson is a familiar name on the county circuit, having been one of a list of New Zealanders who came to the West Country to play and to learn. In 2009 Gloucestershire were fielding three New Zealanders (Craig Spearman, James Franklin and Hamish Marshall). When Spearman left, at the end of the 2009 season, Gloucestershire reduced to “only” two New Zealanders, until Kane Williamson was signed as their third for 2011 and a fourth player (James Fuller) also had a very strong New Zealand connection. Having just missed out on promotion to Division 1 in 2009, Williamson’s arrival as a 21-year-old saw Gloucestershire fall agonisingly short, once again in 2011, in what must be the best Division 2 promotion race in recent times. Spearman is long-retired, as is Marshall and James Franklin – now with Middlesex – is reaching the end of a career where he never quite hit the heights, but Williamson is going from strength to strength and is expected to leave all records set in the past by Glenn Turner and Martin Crowe, far behind him.

Having got past Williamson, there is an opening. The remaining batting is nowhere near as strong and a confident side, full of self-belief, could just knock it over in a session and keep the lead well under 250. Even that would leave a mountain to climb, but you sense that England simply do not have that self-belief right now. Australia have left some deep scars in the collective psyche and the suspicion is that Trevor Bayliss is no longer able to heal them. It is a pity that Ben Stokes felt a twinge in his back when coming in off his full run the day before the game: you sense that the situation is set up for one of his Bothamesque spells to breathe some life and self-confidence into his battered teammates. It is not impossible that Stokes could bowl if the match goes to a fifth day but, what is needed more than anything, is to have a bowler who can send it down regularly at around 90mph, when the current attack is bowling low-80s. You can get away with low-80s when the ball is seaming or swinging, or if you are inhumanly accurate. Save for James Anderson, none of the seamers seem to be consistently enough pin-point in length and line to make the batsmen really uncomfortable.

New Zealand v England: 1st Test, Day 1 - Yes, England’s Winter Can Get Worse

 

New Zealand v England: 1^st Test, Day 1

Yes, England’s Winter Can Get Worse

March 22^nd 2018

First, the good news:

·       England finally bit the bullet and dropped James Vince.

·       And Craig Overton, on his return to the side, produced another gutsy innings that saved England from the danger of equaling, or beating, the lowest ever completed innings in Test cricket.

Now, the bad news:

·       Everything else.

If you thought that England’s winter could not get worse, think again. It just has. And we are only on Day 1. There is every likelihood that England will be following-on on Day 2. And that an innings defeat will follow on Day 3. In a 2-match series, that is probably not the best way to set about winning the series… unless you are a New Zealander.

England had already made at least three, bold decisions. Two of them at least are going to be attacked in retrospect. Ben Stokes, as widely predicted, was picked to bat at 5. However, despite the smoke signals that said that he would be ready to bowl, if not full spells, at least as a fourth seamer, he is not fit to bowl. That meant dropping a batsman to make room for an extra seamer. This set up a ripple of shock waves. #5 is Dawid Malan’s slot and one that he made a success of in the Ashes. One way to accommodate Ben Stokes was to drop James Vince and move Malan up to 3. This is what most people expected. Malan is not a natural #3, but is at least in good form. Instead, Joe Root was moved up to 3, despite his known detestation of batting there. Malan moved to #4. So, to accommodate one player, three changes were made in the top 5. In retrospect, it may not have been the wisest move in a batting order short of runs and confidence.

So, who was to be the extra seamer? In the end, Craig Overton was selected, presumably as the man in possession before his injury. However, as I said in the preview, he is an honest, English seamer. He will not take stacks of wickets, but he will bowl whole-heartedly. Again, in retrospect, seeing just how similar all the bowlers were – all variants on gentle seam and swing – it is easy to wonder whether or not Mark Wood’s extra pace and threat would have made a difference.

And, of course, England’s newest specialist bat, made an 8-ball duck. At least he was in good company: Root, Bairstow, Moeen Ali and Broad also made ducks.

At 23-8, there was every chance of England equaling, or setting a new mark for the lowest ever score in a Test match… 26ao by New Zealand in 1955. That they did not was because Craig Overton, a last-minute call-up, batting at 9 and coming in at 23-7, decided to counter-attack and swung the bat to great effect for about half an hour before leaving Jimmy Anderson to face one ball too many.

For 25 balls things had seemed to be going reasonably well. Alistair Cook started in confident mood, nicking a single at the end of each over, as if protecting Stoneman from the strike. Boult went wide of the crease, moved the ball away and Cook guided it to second slip. Boult’s opening spell was accurate, he moved the ball both ways and was deadly. Seven overs into his spell Trent Boult was guarding the astonishing figures of 7-3-9-5.

The bowling was very good, especially Boult, whose laser-guided accuracy took advantage of errors of batting technique. New Zealand have made good on their promise to be as big a test as - possibly even greater than - Australia. The pitch was blameless. The fielders backed-up their bowlers. And the England batsmen made the bowlers even better by not moving their feet. That the pitch was good was shown by the ease with which New Zealand cruised to a lead of 117 by the Close, with just 3 wickets down. The only consolation is that New Zealand scored very slowly. The new ball is due in the first hour and, unless used to devastating effect, England could be batting again after dinner, 300+ behind and the Test as good as over on Day 2. You have to be impressed by the hosts. They were brilliant, but they were pitted against a pretty hapless opposition.

New Zealand v England: 1st Test Preview - Rehabilitation, or Further Humiliation?

 

New Zealand v England: 1^st Test Preview

Rehabilitation, or Further Humiliation?

March 21^st 2018

I have left this Blog fallow for two months. To be honest, the constant grind of yet more white-ball matches all got a bit too much. And, England reverted to type, winning the first and last matches of their T20 segment, in both cases, meaningless victories (one, a big win in a warm-up, the other too little, too late), before what was admittedly a cracker of a ODI series, with New Zealand where, against all logic, England, who are supposed to be vulnerable in low-scoring games and invincible in high-scoring ones, lost the two games in which the bat dominated and won the three in which the ball was king (at least, it was king when New Zealand were batting). Nothing to get very excited about there.

The two warm-ups for the Tests have been the McDonalds Happy Meal of cuisine: not even a Quarter Pounder to get your teeth into… two, two day games in which both sides would bat for 90 overs, no matter how many wickets they lost. It resulted in some slightly unusual scorecards – e.g. New Zealand XI, 287-13 – and Glenn Phillips failing both as an opener and as a #13 bat, but little else. Almost everyone got a bat, although James Vince, bless him, might be wishing that he had not, as his two innings have placed his name firmly on the list of endangered species… as a Test player, at least.

England have been left with a couple of fine conundra:

·       First – Can Ben Stokes play as a 4^th seamer? He has not bowled since the ODIs, having finished them with some back stiffness (as I have also had some for the last week, I can vouch for the fact that it is not funny). If he cannot, everything indicates that he will play as a specialist bat at #5, which moves everyone else down one place, but also means that an extra bowler is needed.

·       Second – What to do about #3?

England have many options. Some will make James Vince more nervous than others.

If an extra bowler is needed, Mark Wood and Craig Overton are the likely options. Mark Wood played in the first game, Craig Overton in the second. It is fair to say that Anderson and Wood were pretty devastating with the new ball, but that 30-5 and 103-6, became 357-7 and Mark Wood’s figures, by then, were looking a lot less impressive. In the second game, Craig Overton did what Craig Overton does: had a decent bowl, took a wicket, but did not look like running through the opposition, although he kept things tight. However, if either plays, a batsman will need to be sacrificed and that is most likely to be James Vince, with Dawid Malan likely to be pitched in at #3, as Ben Stokes will have taken his own regular spot.

Even if Ben Stokes can bowl – and the indications are that he will be able to – James Vince still cannot relax, because there is a case for replacing him with the impressive Liam Livingstone, who made the highest score for England in either game. However, a measure of just how bad the things were in the Unofficial Tests that the Lions played in the Caribbean is that his scores of 21, 1, 0 & 48 have marked him as one of the relatively successful batsmen in that train wreck. There was even a further option and that was playing Mason Crane, until he had to be sent home injured. Whatever the concerns about Moeen Ali’s form and confidence, which were to a degree alleviated in the second game, playing Mason Crane’s stand-in stuntman, Jack Leach, is not an option.

Whoever is selected – and careers are on the line, particularly in the case of Stoneman and Vince – New Zealand are going to be a formidable test at home. The gloomier predictions are that the series could be lost 2-0. The New Zealand pace attack is formidable in their own conditions and, in terms of depth, reckoned by many to be the best attack that New Zealand has every fielded. The series will be decided by which batting line-up is best able to resist the devastation that the opposition bowling attack can cause. For England, to have a top three who have struggled for runs, pitted against an attack willing to test them to the limit, is not a happy thought. It will be sink or swim but, if it is “swim”, at least no one will be able to suggest that Wagner, Boult and Southee have not been a real test for the batsmen and that they have scored easy runs against a popgun attack.

Alistair Cook has, apart from one big innings, struggled this winter. Mark Stoneman makes defiant fifties, but not enough of them, and has got out soon after reaching fifty each time. And, poor James Vince, makes pretty fifteens, twenties and, sometimes, thirties and then gets out in identikit fashion almost every time.

The feeling is that Alistair Cook’s double century in the 4^th Test should have re-ignited his appetite both for runs and for Test cricket. However, another poor series would undoubtedly start the speculation again. Cook is one of those players who either looks as if he could score tons of runs batting with a stick of rhubarb… or looks as if he *IS* batting with a stick of rhubarb. For one of the modern greats he has had a lot of dreadful runs of form. You only hope that whatever pep-talk Alice, his in-house guru and psychologist has given him over Christmas and the New Year, it has been brutally effective.

No one, bar a few air-heads, should want a player to fail. England fans – and maybe the management too – would be forgiven though for wanting James Vince to define himself one way of the other. He has two Test fifties – good, fighting ones too – but that is only one per ten Test innings: not enough. His last ten matches over three different formats, have been indicative of the enigma that is the Vince Phenomenon. Eleven innings, just two single-figure scores, but out between 10 and 26 no fewer than six times and no innings higher than 45. He gets in, looks world class and then gets out. Nick Compton knows that even two centuries in a series against New Zealand offers no career security, but one begins to hope that he will either be brilliant, ending the talk about his place for a few Tests at least, or incompetent, so that he can be dropped with no guilty feelings. What no one wants is for him to get, say, three starts and a “small” fifty, which will prove nothing one way or the other. The feeling though is that he is very lucky to be in New Zealand and is unlikely to figure in the summer series.

Mark Stoneman is in both a slightly better and a slightly worse situation. Better, because over the winter he has so far scored 5x50 and 1x100, although only two of the 50s have come in Tests. There is no question that Mark Stoneman can grit out brave runs. The bad news is that he has got out immediately after reaching 50 each time that he has done it in Tests. Worse, while no one can agree over a convincing replacement for James Vince, there is a queue of players lining-up behind Mark Stoneman. Nick Gubbins is scoring big runs pre-season. Sam Robson had a prolific start to the 2017 season. Keaton Jennings has shown that he can score Test runs and is Lions captain. And Haseeb Hameed is beginning to show some signs that he may finally be getting back a little form.

There are plenty of other sub-plots: how will Stuart Broad respond to the double challenge of being on 399 wickets and not getting the new ball? Will we see the Chris Woakes of last summer, or the Chris Woakes of the Ashes? Will Moeen Ali re-affirm his position after a poor Ashes series? Can Joe Root start turning 50s into centuries? Which set of bowlers will come out on top? And, not, but not least, how will New Zealand react to the pressure of being favourites for the series?