West Indies v England
2nd Test, Day 3: Awful England Crash Again
February 2nd 2019
The relative batting performance for England and the West
Indies can be summed-up in one statistic:
·
Seven West Indian batsmen got a start in their
first innings, of whom, only two failed to reach thirty.
·
Seven England batsmen got a start in their
second innings, of whom, only one reached twenty.
In a low-scoring Test, in which batsmen never felt in, the
ability to grind-out a 30, or a 40 was fundamental. No one on either side got
very close to Moeen Ali’s first innings 60, but all seven West Indians who got
a start, passed 20 and enough of them chipped-in with 30s and 40s to take them
past 300 and a total worth 500 to 600 on a better pitch.
In the 1st Test, you could think of plenty of
excuses: not enough practice, unfamiliar conditions, players a little
over-confident, the wrong playing XI picked on the day, misreading of the
conditions, etc. They would be switched-on and ready for the 2nd
Test. In fact, the margin in the 2nd Test was probably even bigger
than in the 1st.
Much has been made of the relative difference in pace
between the two attacks. In fact, it was not as great as it might seem:
England
|
Average Speed
|
West Indies
|
Average Speed
|
Difference
|
Anderson
|
81.7
|
Roach
|
81.6
|
-0.1
|
Broad
|
83.5
|
Gabriel
|
87.7
|
+4.2
|
Stokes
|
84.3
|
Joseph
|
85.3
|
+1.0
|
Curran
|
78.8
|
Holder
|
78.0
|
-0.8
|
Anderson and Curran were both slightly faster on average
than their West Indian opposite number. Stokes was a fraction slower than
Alzarri Joseph. The big difference was that the England pace attack had no one
to compare with the pace of Shannon Gabriel. Although Gabriel only bowled
around twenty deliveries in the England second innings that were above 90mph,
the menace was always there. In contrast, 88mph was the absolute limit for the
England bowlers, even with an effort ball (Ben Stokes bowled a couple of
deliveries a little above 88mph, without ever threatening 89mph). Knowing that
a really quick ball could come, the batsmen would always be a little tentative
above getting into line, in case a ball came that exploded in their face in the
way that the ball did to Joe Root in the 1st Test.
One criticism was that the England bowlers were bowling the
wrong length and line. Stuart Broad, in particular, beat the bat on dozens of
occasions. Was he bowling too short? Would bowling straighter have helped?
Unfortunately, data is not available for the England first
innings, but we can compare the line and length of Stuart Broad in the West
Indian first innings and Shannon Gabriel in the England second innings. The
comparison is interesting:
Gabriel only bowled 9 deliveries that pitched closer than 6m from the stumps. Broad pitched many more deliveries well up. Gabriel’s average length was about 7m from the stumps; Broad’s about 6.5m. Gabriel’s greater pace justified his slightly shorter length, but there is no good reason to say that Stuart Broad was consistently too short.
What about line? Gabriel’s average line to the right-hander was around seventh stump. Broad’s shows more dispersion, but was, on average, almost identical, although around half his deliveries were on the fourth/fifth stump line that Gabriel left almost unexplored. Gabriel pitched just one ball on the stumps; Broad just nine, one of them a toe-crunching Yorker on middle-and-off to the left-hander.
The biggest difference though was between Kemar Roach and Jimmy Anderson:
Anderson’s grouping to the right-hander was extraordinary, his deliveries landing in a box 4 metres long and about 4 stumps wide. The further up he pitched, the closer to the stumps the ball landed, making the batsman play. Roach tended to go much wider of off, tempting the batsman to have a go. In contrast, to the left-hander, Roach bowled more balls in line and was slightly tighter around off stump, with not a single ball down leg. In contrast about a third of Anderson’s deliveries to the left-hander were down the leg side, effectively eliminating LBW and bowled as modes of dismissal: in fact, around a third of his deliveries to the left-hander showed exactly the same tight grouping as he showed to the right-hander but, now, they were the wrong side of the stumps. This was the biggest single difference between the respective New Ball bowlers.
The big difference between the sides on a difficult pitch
was:
(a)
Taking the chances that were offered. England
missed too many.
and
(b)
The West Indian batsmen were far more determined
to hang in there in difficult conditions and not to give it away. The West
Indian batsmen sold their wickets at the highest possible price.
For the 3rd Test, at Gros Islet, England are
hoping for a better pitch because they have seen that, on pitches with life,
the West Indians have a big advantage. It would be astonishing if the
groundsman did not serve up another spicy pitch, with the West Indians going
for the throat. That said, is there anything that England can do to give
themselves a better chance?
Denly had two low scores and his one Test has produced 23
runs, compared to the 31 of Jennings. Neither has exactly covered himself with
glory. It would be hard to drop Denly and bring back Jennings… and pretty
unjustifiable. There might though just possibly be a reason to play both
Jennings and Denly, with Denly opening and Jennings slotting-in at #3, where
many pundits suspect that he may do better, long-term, although it would be
better to go with Burns and Jennings opening and Denly in his accustomed place
at #3. While Jennings has not exactly been full of runs, part of the opener’s
job is to see off the opening bowlers and get the shine off the ball. That Jennings
did do: he faced as many balls in his two innings in the 1st Test,
as Buttler, Foakes or Moeen Ali have in the two Tests combined and not many
fewer than Bairstow and Stokes.
One reason to play Jennings would be if there is a second,
attacking spinner, because his specialist fielding at Short Leg at least partly
compensates a lack of runs. That would be if the selectors went with Jack Leach
instead of Sam Curran. Curran is going at almost 4-an-over and has taken just a
single wicket in 42 overs of generally quite innocuous seam and, although third
in the batting averages thanks to a Not Out, has managed just 50 runs. One
suspects that Jack Leach would be a much better foil to Moeen Ali than Adil
Rashid, would offer more wicket-taking threat than Sam Curran and, even if he
slightly lengthens the tail, that tail has hardly wagged so far in the series
anyway, with the last three wickets falling for one run in the first innings
and fourteen in the second, having fallen for sixteen and eighteen in the 1st
Test. Overall, Leach is likely to add far more value in total than Curran.
With Ollie Stone withdrawn from the tour and Chris Woakes
injured, the Leach for Curran swap is the only one feasible in the attack. Who though
might make way to allow Burns, Jennings and Denly to make up the top 3? Jos
Buttler’s 55 runs in 4 innings, while not exactly any worse than his
colleagues, is certainly no better and it looks as if his hands have been
generously spread by some errant kiwi with what was, for my generation, termed “Britain’s
favourite butter”. He is also batting at least one and possibly two places too
high at #5 If Buttler were to make way, Jonny Bairstow would go back to #5,
where he would be likely to make more runs and we would, at least, have a top five
of specialists, batting in their specialist position, rather than a mixture of
batsmen out of position.
So, although it would make some fans splutter over their
morning toast, the following XI would do no worse than the two sides selected
so far:
Burns
Jennings
Denly
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Foakes
Moeen
Broad
Leach
Anderson
No comments:
Post a Comment