England v Australia: Third Test, Stokes Re-Kindles the Ashes as Australia Throw it Away

 

England v Australia: Third Test

Stokes Re-Kindles the Ashes as Australia Throw it Away

August 25^th 2019

 

England should now be 2-0 down with two to play and the destination of the Ashes, but not the series, decided. They are not, thanks to a series of extraordinary events that highlights the fragility of both sides.

An Australian collapse at Lord’s threatened to give England an unexpected chance to square the series after the heavy defeat at Edgbaston. That England were blown away in the 1^st Test, having dominated the match for the first three days, was a salutary lesson. Australia were fifteen behind with their top three dismissed, but England could not finish them off. Might it have changed the result if Jimmy Anderson had not hobbled off after bowling just four overs on the first morning? Just possibly, but a side should be able to overcome such handicaps. Would England have won the 2^nd Test had they not lost an hour on the final morning after so much play – effectively, two full days – had not been lost previously? Quite possibly! These though are simple imponderables: we do not know what would have happened and, both times, Australia rode their luck and battled through.

With Steve Smith, previously the difference between the two sides, out of the 3^rd Test, England had their Ashes 2005 moment. In that series, the freak injury to Glenn McGrath, when he trod on a cricket ball in the warm-up, changed the destination of the series. England revived. Steve Smith out. Jofra Archer causing mayhem. The momentum swinging, surely England had to win now, or lose the series?

Even more, Australia blinked first with selection. Apart from the enforced change to replace Steve Smith, with Labuschagne proving every bit as effective a stand-in as Jofra Archer was for Jimmy Anderson, Cameron Bancroft was the fall-guy for top-order failings. The change made no difference, with Australia 25-2 within forty minutes, but then it was England who lost the plot. An hour of buffet bowling and Australia were in a strong position when they could have been all out for under 100. Take away the 111 stand between a revived Warner and Labuschagne and twenty wickets fell for 145 between the first two innings of the match and the start of the third. For all the complaints that Chris Woakes has been underbowled, his arthritic performance on the first afternoon as two batsmen scored almost as many as the other twenty in the first innings, suggests that his knee is troubling him more than is being admitted. In conditions in which you would have expected him to make hay, his match figures were 25-5-85-2.

The less said about England’s first innings, the better. Jason Roy’s fourth consecutive single-figure score and the manner of his dismissals, show that he is not making a success of opening the innings. Against Australia, he has a sequence of 10, 28, 0, 2, 9 & 8. Joe Root is playing out of position to protect lesser batsmen around him and struggling. Root plays all three formats and has been flogged into the ground over the last couple of years, a fact that some of the more ungrateful fans who are calling for his head, forget conveniently. And Joe Denly is managing a positively James Vince-like sequence of getting a start and then failing to pass thirty. Below them, Bairstow and Buttler look a shadow of the counter-attacking players who can win a Test in session. The Australians were given good bowling conditions to use against a frail line-up and proved irresistible.

Australia, though, are not much better off. Their top order is no more solid than England’s and the middle order is struggling. There is speculation that Tim Paine may have to drop himself because he cannot buy a run and Matt Wade desperately needs a score. The Australia of Allan Border or Steve Waugh would have taken that first innings lead of 112 and sailed off into the distance. At 215-6, with the England attack struggling, they had a chance to push past 400 lead and kill the game but, just as England had failed to apply the killer blow at Edgbaston, Australia were not good enough to apply it here.

A better side than Australia would have taken their chances. When both openers fall to the new ball in under half an hour, with the opposition facing attaining the tenth highest fourth innings chase if they were to keep the Ashes alive and with the batsmen playing as if facing hand grenades, blindfold, with a moral victory for the bowlers at least once an over, the killer blow should have fallen. Yet it did not.

The lesson is that this is a series between two mediocre, inconsistent sides, both capable of moments of brilliance… and a lot of dross.

The key aspect of the partnership between Root and Denly was not the number of runs scored, but the fact that it gave their side belief that the match could be won. It also started to sow the seeds of doubt in Australian minds: a doubt that must have contributed to the frazzled state twenty-four hours later. Even when Joe Root fell early on the fourth morning, just before the new ball, rather than signalling the end, as the fielding side must have expected, the arrival of the new ball brought a flood of runs, as the previously stroke-less Stokes and the previously run-less, Bairstow, combined to reduce the number of runs required ever-closer to the hundred mark that was within reach of a single partnership.

No one can legislate for a batsman chancing his arm and it coming off. In 1981, Ian Botham did it, memorably, both at Headingly and at Old Trafford. These things happen. But you can make it easier for the batsman. Stokes should have been out early in his innings: the chance went begging.

Australian fans will, however, forever believe that they were cheated of victory. Ben Stokes should have been given LBW with 2 runs needed to win, but Joel Wilson gave him the benefit of someone’s doubt. Australia would have won by one run – shades of the Border/Thompson stand in the 1982/83 Ashes – but it should have never got to that. Australia totally lost the plot.

When David Warner dropped Stokes on 34 in the morning session, it did not look so costly. With 17 needed to win, Marcus Harris, who has had a pretty forgettable match, missed a more difficult chance. Then Jack Leach committed suicide, charging down the wicket and should have been run out by yards, but Nathan Lyon dropped the ball and Leach scrambled back. That was symptomatic of scrambled minds that were making mistakes under pressure. A lot of that pressure was being applied by a crowd that never stopped believing and cheered to the echo every four, every six, every single and every forward defensive.

How else do you account for the way that, over after over, Stokes was allowed a comfortable single from the fifth or sixth ball? Australia never pinned him down at one end so that they could attack at the other. How else do you account for the fact that even when they had Leach in their sights, the bowlers could not produce the match-winning delivery? Leach never even looked uncomfortable. How else can you explain the way that none of the bowlers managed to deliver a single Yorker in the block-hole to either Stokes, who was swinging away and thus vulnerable to one, or to Leach? Supposedly, limited-overs cricket as taught bowlers the knack of bowling that lethal, block-hole delivery at the death, but that skill went missing during the frenetic, frantic, last wicket partnership. Or that when Leach was facing early in what proved to be the final over, he was allowed to nudge the single that got him off the mark and levelled the scores?

And, Australia would have won had they not wasted already their review on a quite desperate attempt to remove Jack Leach. When they actually needed a review, six balls later, they had none left.

The English, being the English, will feel guilt that victory was tainted by an umpiring error. Many Australian fans will feed that sense of guilt and make out that they were cheated. Had the roles been reversed, the Australians would have just said “tough mate! You should have taken your chances.” You make your own luck and Australia deserved no better.

The truth of the matter is that, when put under pressure, the Australians cracked. The match should never have been allowed to depend at the very last moment on an umpire who was under extreme pressure too, a good part of it due to the fielding side appealing for everything; it should have been settled long before then.

Ben Stokes’ innings was extraordinary, as was his calmness and awareness, but no less extraordinary was Jack Leach’s calm under extreme pressure, with half the Australian side close enough to touch him and chatting away. Most #11s would have thrown it away: Leach did not.

The 1^st Test was won by an extraordinary batting performance by Steve Smith and the 2^nd Test saved thanks in great measure to another. The 3^rd was won by an extraordinary batting performance by Ben Stokes. With the bowlers holding sway, the series will be decided by which of the two sides manages to produce such innings more often.

Both sides have chronic problems. The top three of both teams has the solidity of wet tissue paper. With a week and a half between Tests, there is time to reflect and take decisions after mature reflection. While Rory Burns has earned himself the full series, the time has come to end the experiment with Jason Roy: he may ride his luck and make a score in the series, but he does not suggest permanence. Similarly, time is running out for Joe Denly. He has reached double figures in every Test this summer, yet passed 30 just once. And Joe Root must drop back down to #4.

England already have a perfect excuse to make changes. Assuming that Jimmy Anderson has shown no reaction to his 2^nd XI outing and is considered fit, he will enter the side at his home ground. It could be that he replaces a bowler – presumably, Chris Woakes – but there is also the possibility that he could replace a batsman and that Sam Curran could replace Chris Woakes. People will look to the heavens at that suggestion but, with the form of some of the batsmen, the depth of the batting will hardly be weakened, but there will be an extra bowling option to keep control. Or England could take the opportunity to refresh both batting and bowling without it looking like panic.

One batting solution would be to bring in Dom Sibley. A look at Sibley’s numbers this season shows that he has not only scored huge numbers of runs, but his strike rate in the low 40s shows that he has had a lot of patience and is willing to grind out an innings. This is just what England need at the top of the order. Sibley, though, had a double failure against Somerset in his only First Class outing since mid-July and will not get another innings before the 4^th Test. Sibley may regret that he timed his one, poor match of the season badly. The ECB should regret the ludicrous scheduling of the feeder competition for the Test side.

An indicator of selectorial thinking is that Ollie Pope was called-up as cover for Jason Roy, after Roy’s blow to the head in the nets, making it far more likely that, at least at Old Trafford, Pope will play instead of Sibley. Doing this allows too a re-jig of the top order. There is a case for Joe Denly to be asked to open with Burns at Old Trafford, with Ollie Pope at #3 and Joe Root at #4. This is a risky solution as, despite his unbeaten double century, Pope has, apart from that single innings, played only T20 since his early season injury and Denly’s experience as an opener is mainly limited to ODIs and T20s for England, ten years ago. However, Denly seems far more likely and prepared to see off the new ball than is Jason Roy: one thing that he has been doing is to stick around, even if the runs have not accompanied. If the coach says to him, “Joe, we are happy to see you bat out a full session for 20”, he is the one player in the top 4 who you can see capable of doing it and of relishing the challenge.

At the same time, Australia will make further changes. The bowlers have been rotated and will continue to rotate. Space will be made for Steve Smith, unless his outing against Derbyshire is a disaster. Marnus Labuschagne will keep his place. David Warner’s innings has probably saved his place, but Matt Wade and Tim Paine’s places are certainly under threat. It is far from impossible that Australia could make as many as three or even four changes.

Both sides will go to Old Trafford thinking of what might have been. England know that they let slip a big first innings lead at Edgbaston and, with a little more luck in the 2^nd Test, could now be 3-0 up. Australia will know that they dodged the bullet in the 2^nd Test and were the better side for most of the game at Headingly and should be 2-0 up and retaining the Ashes. With their talisman back, Australia will expect to put things to rights at Old Trafford. However, if yesterday was a flashback to Headingly ’81, Australia would be wise to recall that Ian Botham produced another extraordinary match-winning innings in a crisis at Old Trafford later that same summer.

Bottom line: expect the unexpected. Both sides are capable of great things… and of producing dross.

 

England v Ireland: Only Test

Issues before the Ashes

July 27^th 2019

 

Ireland’s inaugural Test in England, only their third in total, was as brief and violent as predicted. Despite rain and a quite appalling overrate, it lasted under seven sessions and started and ended with a crazy clatter of wickets. The fact that the clatter of wickets saved England for the very real danger of an embarrassing defeat made it a face-saving relief.

For England, falling to 43-7 and then 85ao in well under a session to a good Second Division county seamer who is approaching retirement and who was never particularly close to a Test place even when at the height of his powers, caused much merriment in Australia. The fact that, at the same time, the batsmen of Australia were floundering desperately in their own match between the Australia and the Australia A squad, may have had something to do with their own enjoyment of seeing someone else struggling.

Kudos to Ireland. They have moulded a team of County pros, many of whom are not 1^st XI regulars into a side that gave England an almighty scare. Ireland have an ethos and a team spirit that does them great credit and they should be proud of their efforts. However, they should have closed-out the win and the fact that they did not will hurt. They will learn from this and, this winter, will get a new chance in Sri Lanka to get that maiden win.

The first thing that is obvious is that England’s switch from white-ball to red-ball mode has been difficult. An experimental top order. A middle order than has barely played a red-ball game all year. And an experimental attack that included two spinners – on a green-top – and a surfeit of all-rounders. All in all, England had a lot to play for and the struggles of the batsmen showed how desperately that they needed to re-acquaint themselves with the skills that the red ball requires. The fact that the innings barely lasted longer than a T20 and was less than half the length of a ODI innings, showed that the England batting problems are nowhere near resolved. The top order is fragile and the middle-order is hit and miss. You can see the Australian bowlers ripping through the batting. However, at the same time, there was a warning to the Australians. Here was an England attack shorn of Jimmy Anderson, Mark Wood, Joffra Archer and Ben Stokes, with a questioned Stuart Broad leading the attack, with a debutant as first change, that was able to defend 181 and win by a massive margin to boot.

While we wonder who will bat in the top 3, we also have to wonder how England will fit in their four injured or rested quicks. One assumes that Stone and Curran will make way but, even so, Anderson, Stokes and, presumably, Archer will come in and surely England will not play five seamers. It is possible that Archer will still not be regarded as fit enough for a Test but, even so, that is just delaying the inevitable problem.

The other big issue is what to do with Moeen Ali? He is so obviously out of sorts. At his best, batting at #8 and bowling as he can he provides a double-whammy of late order runs and abundant wickets against imprudent batsmen who feel that he is not a Test-class spinner. There is a real case for retaining Jack Leach in the playing XI, despite the fact that he had little to do at Lord’s and took some punishment in his first couple of overs: you always need the option, even if you think that a spinner will not be needed. Moeen needs a rest and a run-transfusion with his County and will, again, come back stronger.

Even if Jason Roy scored runs at #3 in the second innings, his nervous, fidgety initial efforts did not promise that he is the opener that England need. There is a strong body of opinion that, like Alex Hales, he should only bat in the middle order. There is an argument for playing him at #3, although he plays at #4 for Surrey. However, that #4 spot is reserved for Joe Root and it is where he bats best for England. Rory Burns is averaging little more than 22 after a decent run in the side (22.3 after 7 Tests) and surely cannot get many more chances. The betting must be that he will not last the Ashes, unless he makes a breakthrough very quickly. Similarly, Joe Denly, strangely picked with the somewhat bizarre idea that he could be as successful with his part-time spin as Moeen has been, has had just one significant knock in six innings, averages 24 and is struggling to get rid of the impression that he is not quite good enough with with bat or with ball at this level. In Denly’s case one wonders what he could have done without those wilderness years after his ODI debut in 2009. Denly is another who may well not be in the XI at the end of the Ashes unless he can find some steel soon.

What of the alternatives? Whatever the cynics say, there is talent there. England’s problem is to find a Boycott and a Tavaré to provide the cement to allow the stroke-players to build an innings.

If you look at the County Championship now, after ten rounds, now in its run-in, there are three stand-out form players: Dom Sibley, Sam Northeast and the eternal enigma, Gary Ballance. Sibley and Northeast average well over 60, with 3x100 and 4x50 each in 9 matches. Sibley is just short of 1000 runs and has a strike rate of 41: just the qualities that England need. Adam Lyth is also beginning to recover the qualities that made him an England opener, but has shown a repeated inability to count past 95 so far this season: fix it and he may be looking at a possible recall. In Division 2 – and I *do not* advocate Division 2 runs as being any kind of adequate preparation for an Ashes Test, two names stand out, apart from Dawid Malan who, has the handicap of battering on the door of a musclebound England middle order and Ryan Higgins (England are mob-handed already with all-rounders): Hassan Azad of Leicestershire and Chris Dent of Gloucestershire, who has recovered his magic this season. Dent is probably the best opener in the country who has never been mentioned for England at any level… and far better than some who have played Tests, let alone for the Lions. Of the two, Hassan Azad will start interesting Division 1 sides and England if he keeps up his prolific season.

England are likely to go with the top 3 from Lord’s and hope that they come good, but not many people expect that top 3 to last more than half way through the series. One hopes that Dom Sibley will come in before it is too late.

 

World Cup 2019: The Greatest Ever Finish to a World Cup Match?

 

World Cup 2019

The Greatest Ever Finish to a World Cup Match?

July 15^th 2019

 

In these days of instant gratification, it was inevitable that cricket would pass from the idea that a tie is a perfectly respectable result in a cricket match, to the cricketing equivalent of the penalty shootout, to a somewhat random arrangement.

In the past, matches with the scores falling level in one-day matches have been settled by such expedients as “fewer wickets lost”, then “score at 30 overs” and, if still level, “score at 20 overs”, “score at 10 overs”, … On any of those systems England would have lost and, rightly, rued their luck. Instead, the ICC chose that, if the scores were level, regardless of wickets lost, there should be a super-over. And, if scores were still level, for some bizarre reason that only the ICC understands, instead of sharing the trophy, or having a second super-over, there would be a count of fours and sixes. Between Jonny Bairstow, Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler there were already more boundaries than the entire Black Caps team could manage.

And then, with Kane Williamson and his team showing a dignity in defeat that a few would do well to imitate, started the whining… but not, from the eastern side of the Tasman Sea.

It all started from the incident on the fourth ball of the final over. England needed nine to win from three balls. Stokes had just hit the previous ball for six and leathered the ball towards the Mid-wicket boundary. In came the throw and, as Ben Stokes dived to make his ground, the ball carroomed off his bat and went for four overthrows. That much is not in doubt.

Should Ben Stokes have been out “Obstructing the Field”? No! His action was involuntary and, although he potentially stopped the throw from running him out, it was no more an intentional act than when a throw hits the stumps and goes for overthrows.

The umpires conferred and awarded six runs.

After the match, people studied the rules and decided that the umpires had given one run too many: the throw had been made from the boundary BEFORE the batsmen had crossed, so only five runs should have accrued.

Simon Taufel said that the umpires had:

“made a tragic error”

Human error is part and parcel of the game and always has been. Is giving a run too many, by error, more tragic than an umpire giving the batsman out to a more than dubious LBW or catch, knowing that the batsman has no review available?

Here, things get complicated. The exact wording of the law is:

Law 19.8 - overthrow or wilful act of fielder:

If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be:

·        any runs for penalties awarded to either side;

·        the allowance for the boundary; and

·        the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.

Most people read "if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw" and, after repeated replays showed that the batsmen had not crossed, made the assumption that only 5 runs should accrue. QED: New Zealand were cheated of victory.

However, the last two words are critical “or act”. The umpires interpreted this as meaning that the act involved was the ball inadvertently hitting the bat. This clearly happened *AFTER* the batsmen had crossed and would lead to six runs accruing.

The law is ambiguous. Both interpretations are valid.

There has been pressure on the ICC to intervene and change the result of the match. However, there is already precedent for the ICC to declare that the decision of the on-field umpires is final and that match results do not get changed after the event. Sensibly, the ICC has stated that it does not comment on on-field decisions.

Should the law be changed, as other critics suggested? Well, it exists to discourage fielders from risking taking a free, wild throw at the stumps with no one backing up. Without the law, any throw that passed the stumps would automatically stop the batsmen from running, even if it was made with no serious intent of a runout and to stop them obtaining legitimate additional runs on the throw.

It is a difficult one and, on another occasion, it is the fielding side that may be penalised as, if the ball were automatically to go dead on passing the stumps, the fielding side would lose the chance of executing a runout because the batsmen have decided to go for a risky run on an overthrow.

There is no perfect law in these cases.

It is all rather sad that such an extraordinary finish should be contaminated by such a toxic debate.

All in all, it was not a great game, as such, because the pitch was rather tricky and did not encourage flowing stroke-play. That, though, contributed to the tension and to the great finish.

New Zealand did what they have done so successfully so often through the tournament: they ground out a score and defended it through skilful bowling and whole-hearted fielding. Only once have New Zealand scored more than 250 in their eleven matches. Only once have New Zealand conceded 300. While England had five batsmen who scored more than 300 runs in the tournament and two who passed 500, New Zealand relied totally on Kane Williamson and Ross Taylor for runs: no other Black Cap reached 200. While England had five batsmen who scored a century – seven in total, plus Ben Stokes’ three scores of 80+ and another of 79 – New Zealand could boast just Kane Williamson’s two tons. Yet New Zealand won matches thanks to an attack that suffocated batsmen: four New Zealand bowlers took at least 14 wickets, more than any other team.

England, in contrast found themselves in the situation in which they had been undone previously: chasing a modest score on a pitch that did not encourage attacking batsmen. What was different was that, just when it looked as if yet another World Cup Final would end in disappointment, Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler kept England just close enough to battle through to the super over.

Make no mistake. England were worthy winners, battling through their nightmare scenario to win.

But New Zealand would, too, have been worthy winners.

Never has a World Cup match produced such an extraordinary finish. And, glory be, it was shown on free-to-air television. For the first time in England since 2005, you did not need an expensive subscription to watch international cricket. That may, indeed, be the greatest success of the 2019 World Cup.

World Cup 2019, Semi-Finals: New Zealand break Indian hearts, England destroy Australia

 

World Cup 2019

Semi-Finals: New Zealand break Indian hearts, England destroy Australia

July 11^th 2019

 

The two loudest and brashest fan-bases in cricket were clear: India would play Australia in the Final at Lord’s on Sunday; no other result was even conceivable. After all, New Zealand had lost their last three matches and Australia had hammered England in the Group stage. It was the natural order. England were bottlers, who are utterly over-rated and New Zealand were lucky even to make the Semi-Final ahead of Pakistan.

No one was quite prepared for the reality. After all, when New Zealand stuttered to 239-8, the Indian fans were licking their lips at the impending rout. India though seemed to have their hearts and minds at Edgbaston, where they had fully expected to be playing the hosts. They did not seem attuned to murky Manchester, where the persistent rain had forced the game into a reserve day. After just nineteen balls the Indian reply was in ruins at 5-3, with the top three all out for a single. Dinesh Karthik followed soon after and India were facing total humiliation. Worse, they were desperately behind the run-rate and needing to re-build before they could even think about scoring quickly. India though, are India. All those embarrassing tribulations of the early editions of the World Cup, in which India only turned-up to make up the numbers, have been long forgotten and India sees reaching the World Cup Final as nothing more and nothing less than their birth-right. You never write-off an Indian team, even an Indian team at 92-6, with the Required Run Rate up to 7.7 and rising fast. And so it proved. The finish got unbearably tense.

That New Zealand’s attack had anything to defend at all was down to a doughty, if dour partnership between Kane Williamson and Ross Taylor. It was not pretty – the run-rate did not reach 4 until the 42^nd over, but it was effective and there were wickets in hand to have a final slog, although the spoilsport Manchester weather meant that the last 23 balls had to wait until the second morning: 28 scored from them.

It did not look like enough, but New Zealand at least had something to bowl at. However, for India, the tactic was clear: bat out the first ten overs without losing a wicket and don’t worry about the runs. If it was 25-0 from 10, fine. If it was 35-0 from 10, game over. 24-4 from 10? Jon McEnroe in his prime would have screamed “you cannot be serious!”

Ten overs, sixty balls left. Ninety needed, but Dhoni and Jadeja building a partnership.

Leather starts to fly. Two overs. Eighteen runs. 72 needed from 48. Jadeja past his 50 and Dhoni acting as sheet anchor. Advantage India, surely?

42 wanted from 24 balls. 37 from 18. Surely Jadeja and Dhoni would produce a final sprint and ease India home. Tight it would be, but two or three big blows would settle it. What no one expected was for the last four wickets to go down in eleven balls. New Zealand had won by 18 runs and the Indians were left wondering how, after looking by far the best team in the tournament for so long, they had lost two of their last three matches and were going home early.

On current form, you would, most certainly not have bet on New Zealand to win. Having just and only just squeaked past the West Indies, New Zealand had lost another close finish to Pakistan and then been hammered both by Australia and England. They appeared to have run out of form at the wrong moment but, now, they were into the Final, thanks to holding their nerve at the critical moment.

And so to Edgbaston, where Australia do not exactly have a good record. In fact, they have not won there since 1993. However, they had never, before today, lost a World Cup Semi-Final and England had not won a World Cup knock-out match since 1992.

The mantra of this World Cup has been “bat first and beat England”. Australia won the Toss and decided to bat. Game over?

Chris Woakes ran in. Juicy half volley. And hammered to the boundary. “Richard in London” launched himself to fame as a pundit on the BBC by declaring, after one ball, the England had bottled the match. One ball into the seventh over, Australia were 15-3 and bottler Woakes had 2-10. By then people were getting concerned for the health of “Richard in London”. No much more than an hour later, Smith and Carey had a century partnership and, if England were not on the ropes, the initiative was slipping away fast, while the instant punditry was starting, once more, to look at least a defensible position. Adil Rashid was bowling and Australia were tucking in. However, Adil Rashid’s great strength has been that he has not been afraid to give away cheap runs if he can get the batsmen to take dangerous liberties. After four overs of punishment, his fifth produced two dots, two singles and, more critically, two wickets. Back came Jofra Archer. Back went Glenn Maxwell. And then, supposedly Unthreatening Adil, added a third wicket. It was not disarray, but nor were Australia anywhere near a competitive total. Woakes and Wood finished off the tail and Australia had not even batted-out their overs.

If you wanted to know how big a deal this was, the ball from Jofra Archer that knocked-off Lukas Carey’s helmet even made it onto the Spanish evening news, just after the images of people running the bulls in Pamplona. There is more than a hint of 2005 in England’s bullying of the opposition and Joffra Archer has laid down the same sort of marker that Steve Harmison laid down in 2005 with that brutal ball at the start of the series.

The Australian fans were confident that 223 would be enough. The script called for England to slump to 13-5 in reply. Bairstow and Roy had other ideas. 10 overs: 50-0. 20 overs: 147-2. Even with generous help from the umpire in Roy’s wicket (that does not excuse dissent), Australia were taking a terrible beating.

England won with 107 balls to spare. And, if you want a hint of how big a win this was, just ponder that, if you double England’s score at 30 overs, you get 420 as a projected 50-over total.

And so to Lord’s. Whatever happens, there will be a new name on the World Cup. Both England and New Zealand have reached the Semi-Finals. England have played in the Final, three times, but have never won. New Zealand were losing finalists last time out.

New Zealand’s batting has not really fired: just once have they reached 250 in the tournament. England have passed 300, six times but, when England’s batting has failed, it has failed big time. The New Zealand bowlers are canny, but their batting depends too much on Kane Williamson. Both sides can be vulnerable. And both can be tough to beat. Which will handle the pressure best?

World Cup 2019, Days 34-39: Pakistan and Bangladesh fall short, New Zealand hang on

 

World Cup 2019

Days 34-39: Pakistan and Bangladesh fall short, New Zealand hang on

July 7^th 2019

 

Over the last week the configuration of the Semi-Finals has been confirmed. The top four are indeed the four teams that have seemed likely to qualify since the first week of this ridiculously extended marathon.

All through, people have been talking of the parallels with the 1992 tournament, played in Australia and New Zealand. Parallels there are, but nowhere near as strong as the Pakistan fans have been trying to believe. That tournament started with New Zealand crushing all opposition, winning their first seven games. As in 2019, Pakistan’s fate was firmly tied to New Zealand’s. While, in 2019, fate determined that Pakistan had to win their last game by a huge margin to pip New Zealand to the last qualifying spot, in 1992, they had to beat the previously unbeaten New Zealand in their last group match to pip Australia. What fewer people remember is that the other two Semi-Finalists were South Africa and England, with the Final between Pakistan and England.

In 1992, New Zealand showed how little group phrase form, meant by following their seven runs on the trot with two defeats: the defeat to Pakistan in the final group game was then followed by a second defeat to Pakistan in the Semi-Final. New Zealand lost momentum at the critical moment and went home. Again, the abiding sense in 2019, is that their campaign has, once more, deflated at the critical moment.

In 1992, England lost their last two groups games – to New Zealand and to Zimbabwe – before winning the notorious Semi-Final, in which South Africa’s target of 21 from 13 balls was reduced, after a brief rain interruption, first to 21 from 7 balls and then to 21 from 1 ball: not one of the ICC’s more glorious moments. And India? They finished above just Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe: their only high point of a poor campaign was a win against Pakistan.

In another sense, the parallels are weak too. New Zealand, England and Pakistan all averaged totals around 200 in their group games. Pakistan’s average total was 203, New Zealand’s was 201 and England’s, exactly 200, with South Africa averaging 190. It was cricket from a different age, in which a side batting first and setting 240 knew that they were very likely to win.

Anyway, back in 2019, which is what concerns us here, we have ended up with a first Semi-Final between India and New Zealand and a second, between Australia and England.

Undoubtedly, India are the happiest of the sides, as theirs looks unquestionably the easiest task. They must have been expecting to have to play England at Edgbaston, scene of their only defeat so far in the tournament. Instead, a remarkably tepid Australian performance in their last group game has allowed the Indians to top the group.

The week has consisted of a series of final eliminators. It started, with India hanging-on to beat Bangladesh in a tight finish. A margin of 28 runs looks safe enough, but Bangladesh fought to the finish. With 36 required from the last 3 overs and a set batsman at one end, who was hitting well, Bangladesh were closing on an extraordinary win and the chance to keep their hopes alive. India though are made of stern stuff. Mohammad Saifuddin took a single from the fourth ball of Jasprit Bumrah’s final over, exposing the tail-ender and Bumrah responded magnificently, bowling Rubel Hossain and Mustafizur Rahman with his last two deliveries. India were through to the Semi-Final and Bangladesh were out, but not before showing that they are no longer a push-over in English conditions.

The scene was set for England’s showdown with New Zealand at Chester-le-Street. Once England won the Toss, you suspected that New Zealand’s task might be a tough one and, by the time the score reached 104-0 from 15 overs, with Roy and Bairstow scoring at seven-an-over, that task became a massive one. By the time that England had their mid-innings wobble, there were good runs in the bank and it was obvious that the pitch was not the flat one that Roy and Bairstow had made it seem. At 14-2 after 5.2 overs, already the New Zealand challenge was fading fast. Williamson and Taylor started to fashion a recovery, although the RRR was starting to climb alarmingly even before they were both run out in consecutive overs. Williamson can feel unlucky, but Wood’s magnificent dive to get a finger on Taylor’s drive, deflecting it on the stumps, made its own luck. Taylor then committed suicide, going for an inexistent second run, in what seemed almost an act of contrition. And that was that. New Zealand were heavily beaten, but not quite heavily enough to give Pakistan a realistic chance of going ahead in Net Run Rate.

The West Indies – Afghanistan clash was more a case of “A Comedy of Errors” than “Great Expectations”. Afghanistan, once again, failed to close out a win when it was there for the taking against an opponent that was offering plenty of facilities. With 68 required from the last 6 overs and a set batsman, Afghanistan should have gone closer. A 23-run margin was another exercise in frustration for them, while the West Indies will reflect how a brilliant start to the campaign has become a very poor finish.

And so to Pakistan v Bangladesh. The calculators had come out and their news was not good. If Pakistan bowled first, they were, mathematically, eliminated. No combination of scores would save them. If they batted first, they needed to win by a hundred runs more than the world record margin for an ODI. Realistically, any score under 450 gave them no chance.

Pakistan won the Toss and batted. Would they go after the bowling from the word go and try to work a miracle? No. They chugged along in a tuk-tuk set at four and a half per over and just barely reached the minimum score of 308 required to avoid automatic elimination. It took Bangladesh just eleven balls to score the eight runs required to confirm New Zealand’s qualification. That they won by a large margin, with a lot to spare, makes Pakistan’s lack of ambition all the more frustrating.

And so, to the last two matches, which would decide the top two in the table and the Semi-Final crosses.  

India blew Sri Lanka away. It was not much of a contest. Despite another wonderful innings from Angelo Matthews, Bumrah was far too good for the rest of the batting. Centuries for Sharma and Rahul, an opening partnership of 189 at better than a run-a-ball and the rest was just net practice. Bumrah is, without doubt, the bowler of the tournament and India’s biggest weapon in the knock-out stage.

Logic dictated that in the afternoon match, Australia would push aside their pet whipping-boys and top the table, setting-up a Semi-Final with New Zealand. What happened though was that the Australian attack, which had seemed to get progressively stronger and better-balanced after some rather anaemic early performances, had one of its least-threatening days of the tournament. The South African top four, which had shown the reliability of a jalopy that was condemned to the scrapyard, fired. Century for du Plessis. Van der Dussen fell just short of one of his own. Fifty for de Kock. 34 for Markram. Finch fell in the third over. Khawaja retired hurt in the fifth with a calf strain and Steve Smith fell in the seventh. Australia were effectively 33-3. Warner and Carey kept Australia in the chase, but wickets always fell before they could get their noses in front and, although the final margin was just 10 runs, it felt like a much heavier defeat.

India finish top and play New Zealand at Old Trafford on Tuesday.

Australia play England at Edgbaston on Thursday.

One assumed that India will cruise into the Final, notwithstanding a suspect middle-order. New Zealand seem to be fading. The other Semi-Final is intriguing. Australia won the group game very comfortably, but against an England side that was struggling a bit without Roy at the top and without the four-pronged pace attack that served them so well at the end of the campaign. Australia have, themselves, looked vulnerable at times, although David Warner and Steve Smith have had wonderful campaigns. They will be thinking: win the Toss, bat first and win. It is true that England’s three defeats came, chasing and that runs on the board have been important through the tournament but, before those three defeats, England had had fifteen consecutive, successful chases. It will be interesting to see how the two sides approach the match.

 

 

World Cup 2019, Days 32-33: And Then There Were Five…

 

World Cup 2019

Days 32-33: And Then There Were Five…

July 1^st 2019

 

With just six qualifying matches remaining, only Australia are guaranteed a Semi-Final place. Even India run a slight – albeit, very slight – risk of not making it through and, at the same time, facilitating Bangladesh’s path to an unexpected Semi-Final place.

Such is the impact of recent results that, were India to fall to a surprise defeat tomorrow to Bangladesh, their Semi-Final place would hang on not losing to Sri Lanka in their final group match and Bangladesh not beating Pakistan in their last game.

It is an unlikely scenario but, as they are now direct rivals for a Semi-Final place and play each other in the penultimate round of matches, were India to lose their last two matches and Bangladesh win their last two, both teams would be on five wins. There would also be a Net Run Rate swing that could threaten to put Bangladesh ahead. The swing would need to be 0.25 runs per over per match – equivalent to an average margin of about 30-40 runs in each game. Theoretically, Pakistan could also eliminate India but, in this case, the margins would have to be much larger, as Pakistan’s NRR is much worse than Bangladesh’s and they have just a single match to improve it.

The bottom line: such is the credit that they have accumulated from their victories, that even two narrow defeats are sufficient for India to qualify comfortably for the Semi-Finals but, the mere thought that, at this stage, they could somehow still miss out, imbues the match tomorrow with some tension.

New Zealand and England do not have that comfort. Their play each other on Wednesday in their own, respective final contests. Here, the situation is simple: the winner is guaranteed a Semi-Final place; if the match were to be abandoned without a result, probably both would qualify. The loser though would be at the mercy of other results. If New Zealand lose, they would be vulnerable to a big Pakistan win against Bangladesh or, even more so, to Bangladesh beating both India and Pakistan. New Zealand will, at least, start the match knowing if the second of these scenarios has already been ruled out.

If England lose, they would be dependent on the following set of results: either, Bangladesh would have to lose to India and then beat Pakistan; or, then India would need simply to avoid a big loss to Bangladesh and then the Bangladesh v Pakistan match would have to be abandoned with no result.

What of Sri Lanka? Sri Lanka can reach England’s ten points by beating India, but the first tie-breaker is number of wins: England have five, Sri Lanka can only reach four. Sri Lanka are eliminated mathematically, whatever Net Run Rate may say when qualifying ends, however unfair that may be.

So, still we have many permutations and the calculators may be working overtime, albeit in some of the less likely scenarios.  So, how have we got here?

After England’s desperately poor performances against Sri Lanka and Australia, you would not have got good odds on India being sent packing, particularly not on a ground that was reckoned to be particularly favourable to the Indian attack. And even less when England took a punt on playing four bowlers capable of hitting 90mph (144km/h) and dropped Moeen Ali, while India went for a balanced attack. The reckoning was that England would lose top-order wickets to Shami and Bumrah and would then commit suicide against the spinners in a desperate effort to get runs on the board, while the pace attack would be hit to all parts with gay abandon by the powerful Indian batting.

What no one anticipated is that, even though Bumrah permitted no liberties, Shami would be attacked at the other end to such effect that Bumrah’s incredible economy was irrelevant. The first PowerPlay still ended with England 47-0 and looking comfortable. The next seven overs produced 77 runs, as Pandya’s first two overs went for an eye-watering 23. Even though England had a mid-innings wobble, 337-7 was always going to test India’s suspect middle order, especially as it would be a World Cup record chase.

India’s problem was passivity. While England scored 13x6 and 27x4, with Jos Buttler producing a cameo of 20 in 8 balls when quick runs were needed, India, in contrast, played three straight maidens from Chris Woakes and had the lowest PowerPlay score of the tournament to date. Although they reached the boundary 35 times, just once it was for a maximum and that one came in the last over of the match, with the contest already decided. Then, bizarrely, after the match, Kohli complained about the short boundary! Virat, if it is so short, get the ball over it!!!!

Each time that India threatened to put together a match-winning partnership, a wicket fell. Liam Plunkett dismissed Kohli, Pant and Pandya each time one of them was starting to look dangerous. Woakes removed Sharma. Then came the most bizarre part of an unusual match. Adil Rashid came back with 95 required from 54 balls. There was a collective intake of breath: if this over went for 20-25, Indian would be right back in the match, but Dhoni and Pandya just pushed five singles. Just four boundaries came between the 41^st and 48^th over. However well England bowled, the lack of aggression from the batsmen left the fans dumbfounded and boos ran around the ground as the Indian fans saw the lack of intent, before the stands started to empty as the reality of imminent defeat hit home.

The official margin was 31 runs, but it felt like a much heavier loss than that. The Indian air of invincibility was well and truly exploded.

West Indies v Sri Lanka was a dead rubber, but with pride at stake. This was a case of contrasting fortunes. The West Indies started the tournament with a thunderclap of raw pace and aggression and, after their shattering, narrow loss to Australia and their pummelling by England, have got poorer with each passing game. Sri Lanka looked awful at the start of the tournament but, gradually, have gained self-belief.

Sri Lanka looked set for 350+ after a wonderful century from young Avishka Fernando, but were reined back in slightly. Even so, 339 was a big target for a West Indies side shorn of all confidence and looking less united and more apathetic with each game. At 22-2 after five overs one thought that the match might end quickly. That it did not was down to a marvellous century by Nicholas Pooran – another young player – and a good fifty for Fabian Allen. Had Allen not run himself out with 57 needed from 36 balls, the West Indies would probably have won, although a cynic would say that they would have found a way to lose the game somehow.

Pooran kept fighting: 31 from 18 was doable. With the main bowlers bowled out in a desperate attempt to slow the West Indian charge, on came Angelo Matthews for his first bowl in eighteen months. His first delivery was a pretty rank one outside off. Pooran could have hit it anywhere, but edged it through to the ‘keeper. Game over. Matthews and Malinga kept their heads and the West Indian challenge evaporated as swiftly as it had earlier re-appeared. Matthews ended with 1-6 from his two overs at the death. If those are his last two overs in cricket, it is not a bad way to end his bowling career.

Tomorrow: Bangladesh v India. India are massive favourites. All logic says that they will seal their Semi-Final spot and end Bangladesh’s slim hopes, but then, all logic said that England would beat Sri Lanka.  

World Cup 2019, Days 29-31: New Zealand and England at Risk

 

 

 

World Cup 2019

Days 29-31: New Zealand and England at Risk

June 29^th 2019

 

Odd events at Headingley. Very odd.

At 17:29, UK time, Pakistan’s World Cup hopes were hanging by a thread. The Afghan spinners had an absolute stranglehold on the batsmen. The Required Run Rate was climbing. The difference between balls to come and runs was increasing alarmingly. Afghanistan were on the point of a famous victory. At 17:34, Pakistan were back on the brink of victory themselves after a single, catastrophic over for Afghan hopes.

In one of the most inexplicable tactical decisions of the tournament, Gulbadin Naib, who had been leaking runs, brought himself back, in place of a spinner. Samiullah Shinwari had just bowled a superb over for just two runs, racking-up the tension. When one more, economical over would have effectively sealed the match, Naib bowled an over of the most incredible dross. It went for 18 runs and 46 wanted from 30 became 28 from 24. The dynamic had changed.

Mujeeb Ur Rahman brought it back with another great over. 6 needed from the last over. Who did Naib entrust with that last over? Two full tosses, a ball down leg and a freebie outside off later, Afghanistan, or maybe just the team’s captain, had managed, somehow, to lose. The universal comment was “what was Gulbadin Naib thinking”? Did he want to be the hero? If Pakistan qualify for the Semi-Finals thanks to this result, he may face some interesting questions.

It was a strange day. Incidents between fans before the match. A pitch invasion and fighting on the terraces.

The bottom line is that Pakistan are now probably in the best position to qualify for the Semi-Finals. They must beat Bangladesh in their last game and hope that England do not win their two remaining fixtures.

Before this, India duly eliminated the minimal mathematical chance that the West Indies had of qualification. The West Indies opened the tournament with a demolition of Pakistan and were highly competitive against South Africa and Australia, but have since fallen apart. After batting steadily, a strong finish took India to a testing score. Kemar Roach’s figures were exceptional, but Oshane Thomas and Carlos Bathwaite went for a combined 10-0-96-0, which rather undid his efforts.

After Shami torpedoed the top order, the Indian bowling was relentless. Shami and Bumrah combined for 12.2-1-25-6. You had to be impressed.

Meanwhile, the outside chance that Sri Lanka had of qualifying, despite their limp performances, was almost extinguished by South Africa. Eliminated and with no pressure on them, they produced the sort of performance that had been expected before the tournament. It was as one-sided as any game so far. After losing a wicket first ball, the next eight batsmen got a start, but none passed 30. South Africa went off like a pack of stampeding Wildebeest and won at a canter. Sri Lanka must now win their last two games and rely on Pakistan losing their last match, England losing their last two and Bangladesh losing to India before beating Pakistan. It is not going to happen, is it?

And then, Australia annihilated New Zealand. It is a result that gives England hope and should alarm New Zealand, because they could yet miss out on the Semi-Finals. It is unlikely, but not quite impossible. If England beat India tomorrow and then New Zealand and Pakistan beat Bangladesh or, even more so, if Bangladesh win their last two matches, New Zealand could go out on NRR.

Australia’s score, topped and tailed by collapses, looked short. At 46-3 and 92-5 New Zealand had the chance to go for the throat. A century partnership for the sixth wicket against the change bowlers changed the momentum and 44 for the seventh maintained it, even if a Trent Boult hat-trick – bowled, bowled, LBW – did, briefly, even things up. At half way New Zealand were in with a chance, but the Australian attack looks so better balanced now than it did two weeks ago. 5-26 for Starc, 1-14 for Cummins and even Steve Smith took his first wicket in ODIs for nearly 5 years. New Zealand’s NRR has taken a big hit and a heavy defeat in their last game might yet prove fatal. The New Zealand bowling attack has been excellent, but the batting is far too dependent on Kane Williamson.

Seven matches remain. India play three of them and have the fate of England and Bangladesh in their hands. If India beat England tomorrow, the hosts will have to rely on other results falling their way. It is not a cheering thought for Eoin Morgan’s men, beset with injury and other doubts. An England win though would set up a grandstand finale to qualifying and all but eliminate Sri Lanka.