New Zealand
v England: 1st Test, Day 5
Defeat, in a
Match that Could and Should Have Been Saved
March 28th 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 2nd 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 2nd
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment