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.

Ashes 2017/18: 3rd ODI - Australian Inadequacies Left Bare

 

Ashes 2017/18: 3^rd ODI

Australian Inadequacies Left Bare

January 21^st 2017

As in the Test series, the ODIs have been settled at the first opportunity. Australia needed to win or tie to keep the series alive and, despite almost everything running for them, were never really at the races after England recovered from a difficult position.

Australia had to chase in what were probably the best batting conditions of a match, after England’s main strike bowler limped off having bowled just eight deliveries. After 48 overs, with two well-set batsmen at the crease and comfortably ahead of England at the same stage – having been well ahead during virtually the entire chase – the same thing happened as had happened in the first two matches: their chase died away. Australia’s batting simply fades out in the last five overs when other sides look to score fifty, sixty, or even seventy runs. Today was their best effort of the three matches so far, with thirty-seven from the last five overs but, when you need two-a-ball (a rate that should not be out of reach with two well-set batsmen, one of them a big-hitter), they managed the required twelve from a only single one of the last five overs and, by then, only when it was far too late.

Compare this with England’s effort. Tied in knots by the Australian attack, they were 200-6 after 40 overs and 236-6 after 45, with the pundits speculating that 270 would be defendable. The last five overs went for 8, 10, 10, 24 and 14. The seven death overs of Hazlewood, Cummins and Starc, brought back to slap down those irritating Poms, went for  a total of 83 runs. It all goes to show that what works in Tests, does not always work in white-ball cricket.

Steve Smith admitted that Australia were chasing thirty too many. At times though, their tactics were somewhat odd. Joe Root, brought in to complete Liam Plunkett’s allocation, was given some brutal treatment, finishing his first spell with 6.4-0-53-0: just what Australia needed – to attack the emergency bowler when Eoin Morgan really did not have a viable seventh bowler available to relieve the pressure. Root though came back and bowled his last two overs for just seven runs. Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid then bowled some cheap overs as the batsmen dawdled along and, suddenly, the RRR was climbing. Steve Smith, so different from the batsman who ruled the Test bowling with a rod of iron, scored at the equivalent of 4-an-over and managed only a single boundary in 66 balls. Mitch Marsh was a little quicker (5-an-over) but, with a run-a-ball needed, only Aaron Finch and Marcus Stoinis showed the necessary urgency. As in the previous match, the rest left them too much to do. It was all very well saying that Smith was setting a base for the final slog, but the final slog just has not been coming and the 1990s-style mid-over batting killed the chase.

Moeen Ali, although he has only two wickets in the series, continues to be the most economical bowler on either side. Adil Rashid has almost identical figures to Mitch Starc – they have bowled the same number of overs, have taken the same number of wickets, but Adil Rashid has conceded two more runs – and his mid-overs partnership with Moeen is proving to be England’s trump card. In contrast, only Andrew Tye is giving Steve Smith some control.

England’s other trump card is the finishing. Chris Woakes is proving a far bigger threat with the white ball than with the red. He has four wickets at good economy, but his 92 runs at a strike rate of 146 have given England the final push that they needed in both games in which he has batted because he has batted in support of someone at the other end. Australia, in contrast, have a finisher, Stoinis, who has 120 runs at a strike rate of 135, but he has played a lone hand with no real support: other batsmen have always left him far too much to do.

Today though, the story was of Jos Buttler. He has looked totally lost most of the time in Tests but, give him a white ball and a licence to hit and he looks a totally different player. A century from 83 balls, with his second fifty come from just 31 as he tore the Australia Test attack to shreds.

This being Australia and another defeat, there has to be some controversy. Defeat in the first two ODIs has been marked by suggestions that Australia are not really trying and have not fielded their best side (NB: England have not been able to field their best side either, only the best available, but that is another story). Today, they fielded another changed team and what is undoubtedly their best attack, so it was an umpiring decision that received the brunt of their ire. Steve Smith edged and looked back, guiltily. Jos Buttler swooped and claimed the catch. The umpire gave it out. And Smith reviewed. As is their wont, the TV images just added confusion and we were in a situation where unclear, foreshortened images were clearly out to one side and that the ball had clearly bounced to the other. The Third umpire took the pragmatic view that he could not say beyond all doubt that the on-field call was wrong, so a furious Smith had to go. Australians will blame their defeat on the umpires but, his dismissal probably helped Australia because, at that stage, the RRR was rising and Smith seemed unable to accelerate, while the fall of his wicket brought in the aggressive Stoinis. The Australians might well reply that the wicket lifted England when they might have started flagging, but Smith would have had to start to take some risks or sacrifice his wicket soon anyway.

There are still two ODIs and two T20s to come. You can imagine England winning most, if not all of them. It does not change what came before, but it will allow a more positive spin on the tour as a whole, so different to the 2013/14 tour. However, even if England win all the ODIs and T20s, were we to be counting points, as in the Womens’ Ashes, the final score would still be 22-18 to Australia. The Tests were lost – and lost badly – and that is what will be remembered in future years.

 

Ashes 2017/18: Don’t Panic Captain Mainwaring!

 

Don’t Panic Captain Mainwaring!

November 10^th 2017

To read the headlines in the sporting press there would seem to be little point in England turning up for the 1^st Test in just under two weeks. It is all redolent of a previous tour when Martin Johnson famously summed-up the warm-ups with the phrase:

England have just three problems: they can’t bat, they can’t bowl and they can’t field.

Of course, the first day of that series ended 198-2 and England won a comfortable series victory. Fixating so much on England’s problems, no one looked at Australia’s.

Of course, we have been here before. England went to Australia in 2013 on the back of a 3-0 home Ashes win, lost the initiative at the end of the series, particularly in the ODIs and fell apart. Poor selections, poor planning and some downright bad luck played their part, as did an astonishing run of form from Mitch Johnson, who had probably never in his career strung together such a devastating string of performances. England were not the only sufferers: in ten Tests over three series v Sri Lanka, England and South Africa in a 16 month period punctuated by a serious injury, Mitch Johnson took 68 wickets at 16.6. It was England’s misfortune to meet him at the height of his powers – his next five series, the last of his career, saw him take 49 wickets at 33.9 and conform to his stereotype of “occasionally devastating, frequently innocuous”.

The BBC has a particularly devastating exposé of the events behind the scenes in the 2013/14 Ashes, but even it barely scratches the surface. The plan to hit Australia with three tall fast bowlers backfired spectacularly. The selectors were apparently unaware that Chris Tremlett was still feeling his way back from serious injury and a shadow of his former self. Boyd Rankin was never fit on that tour and even so had to play a Test. And Steve Finn got the yips so badly that it would have been kinder to send him home. However, the selectors were not to blame for Graeme Swann suffering career-ending injury, Jonathon Trott’s stress-induced illness (although there were signs that all was not well months beforehand) and Monty Panesar starting to suffer the problems that have derailed his career.

The 2017/18 Ashes touring party has convinced no one. Batting positions #1, #3 and #5 have produced the sort of action normally seen in comedy films when a hand grenade without a pin is passed from hand to hand. While Mark Stoneman has given some signs of being able to cope as a Test opener, his record is modest and he owes his position more to the failings of others. Dawid Malan at #5 was a surprise pick in the summer Tests: again, he has played a couple of decent innings, but is yet to convince. And the “battle” to bat at #3 between James Vince and Gary Ballance sees two batsmen, tried, tested and discarded, in a shoot-out in which the bullet is as likely to hit the batsman’s own foot as it is to hit the opposition gunslinger.

There is no Ben Stokes for well-known reasons and that unbalances the attack and the middle-order. Steve Finn has already been sent home, injured. Moeen has not yet bowled a ball in anger. Jake Ball, who looked set to play in the 1^st Test has sprained an ankle. And injuries ruled out Mark Wood, Toby Roland-Jones and a string of other likely bowlers, while one of the few players to come home from Australia with any credit in 2014 – Chris Jordan – is now out of favour and appears forgotten.

Add to all this that, against a couple of pretty weak attacks, Alistair Cook is yet to make a score and appears to be batting with a stick of rhubarb and there have already been several collapses in just three innings and it is not surprising that the Australian fans and press are shaking with laughter. The opening shots from the bowling attack hardly inspired fear either. Two months without a bowl in the middle has left some of the bowlers logically a little rusty. Stuart Broad looked particularly out of sorts and Chris Woakes’s opening overs were pretty rusty, but that is why you schedule warm-up games. The aim is to have Broad, Woakes and Jimmy Anderson fit and firing at Brisbane on November 23^rd, not at Perth on the first day of the tour. Win or draw that Brisbane Test and suddenly the momentum of the series will change.

Already there are some small signs that suggest that maybe things are not so bad after all. No batsman has yet scored a century, but there have been two near misses. Mark Stoneman has 3x50 in three innings. Six batsmen have registered a fifty, while Malan already has two in three innings and Jonny Bairstow has only been dismissed once so far in three innings.

Of the attack, Jimmy Anderson looks in superb form. His 7 wickets have so far cost under 10 each. Chris Woakes  has run through the Cricket Australia XI top order and wild cards Crane and Overton, who both probably expected to spend two months carrying drinks, have also taken wickets and shown some promising form. And, before his injury, Jake Ball’s accuracy and economy were very impressive.

Australia’s first-choice attack looks fearsome, but the reserves are thin and much depends Pat Cummins, whose injury record is horrific. There are also questions about at least two places in the top seven. At the same time, Australia’s median innings total in the last two years is just 243. There have been eight completed innings totals under 200, not all of them away from home either. Innings totals of 85 and 161 against South Africa in Hobart and a struggle to reach a target of 187 against New Zealand speak of frailties no less real than England’s, as do a series of abject performances in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

You can certainly argue that the 1^st Test will decide the series. If Australia win easily, the cracks in their own side will be forgotten and those in England’s team – one highly respected writer already calls them “beleaguered” – may quickly widen to chasms. In contrast, a solid England draw would send a powerful message and help to knit the team together in adversity. If the top order can oblige Pat Cummins to come back for a third and a fourth spell, the lower order will find it much easier to add the tail-end runs that are so often the difference between victory and defeat.

Expectations of England, as in 1986, are miserably low: that may be no bad thing because the opposition will expect to win easily – if they do not, the pressure in the series will shift quickly.

West Indies v England, 2nd Test, Day 5: An Extraordinary 24 Hours for Test Cricket

 

West Indies v England, 2^nd Test, Day 5: An Extraordinary 24 Hours for Test Cricket

August 29^th 2017

Over the last twelve hours the cricket world has been turned on its head. First, the West Indies pulled-off an astonishing chase against England: the twentieth highest ever successful chase in Tests. Then, Bangladesh completed a win against Australia when, at 158-2 chasing 266, only an Australian win seemed possible.

Both results were earth-shaking: the West Indies had not won in England since the epic tour of 2000 when Walsh and Ambrose had their swansong and England finally lost their fear of the West Indians. Bangladesh had never beaten Australia in a Test. Australia have played Bangladesh 29 times in all formats and previously lost just once – in an ODI in Cardiff in 2005 after Andrew Symonds had been dropped on the morning of the match for partying the night before and a certain suspicion exists that Australian minds were not exactly focused on the game. It is a measure of how little Australia rate Bangladesh that in 14 years there have been just two previous series between the two sides and, in one of those, Australia famously tried to win a Test in a single day.

If, for a few hours, Australian fans could laugh at England, the manner of the Australian surrender, highlighting one of the topics common to both sides – their vulnerability on turning wickets and the paucity of their spin-bowling resources to respond – was every bit as poor. Australia’s response has been to give themselves the option of going into the must-win 2^nd Test with just one seamer. Now this was a tactic used with success by India in the 1970s and by Pakistan in the ‘80s, but they could count on extraordinary spinners of the quality of Bishan Bedi, Prasanna, Chandrasekhar, Venkat, Abdul Qadir and Iqbal Qasim; Australia simply do not have the same quality in depth. It is the same as if England had played Moeen, Batty, Dawson & Ansari together in India: four spinners, yes, but not four of any quality or threat. Last winter England learnt the hard way that it is not how many spinners you play, but how much quality that they have that counts. It is true that for a must-win match on a turning pitch in Port-of-Spain in 1974, England did play four spinners and won, but the spinners were Greig, Underwood, Pocock and Birkenshaw: all class acts (Geoff Arnold shared the new ball with Greig, who turned to spin as soon as the shine was off the ball).

England’s response to their own humiliation at Headingley has been to name the same XIII for Lord’s, but one suspects that Toby Roland-Jones may play instead of Chris Woakes – more of that later. “Same players, better play” might have rasped Essex’s legendary Tonker Taylor in response to the squad announcement.

England turned up on the fifth morning to conditions that normally would have guaranteed a win not long after Lunch: overcast skies, dim light and perfect seam-bowling conditions. The script seemed perfectly prepared for Jimmy Anderson to take his 500^th Test wicket and, despite not playing T20 since 2009 and ODIs since 2015, get close to his 800^th international wicket (he is now on 784).

In reality, England had lost their way not so much by a poor batting performance on the 1^st day (their total was short of what it should have been, but not so far short), but by a collectively horrible bowling performance on the 2^nd day. Apart from Jimmy Anderson, the rest of the attack was very poor. In fact, it is probably not unfair to say that the decision to replace Toby Roland-Jones with Chris Woakes probably lost England the game. Chris Woakes desperately needed the game, but responded with a terribly rusty performance and the rest of the attack took their cue from him. Stuart Broad was inaccurate. Ben Stokes as ineffective as he has ever been and Moeen Ali just had an awful match with the ball. If he has shown anything, Toby Roland-Jones has demonstrated an ability to provide control and nip in with crucial wickets when they are most needed; it was an ability that England sorely missed here. One hopes that sanity will prevail, that Roland-Jones will be restored for Lord’s and that Chris Woakes will be asked to play every possible game both for Warwickshire and for Warwickshire 2^nd XI from here to the end of the season to get himself properly match-fit and into a good rhythm to be unleashed on the Australians.

Arguably, England should have made 330 in their first innings and the West Indies no more than 300. Had that happened, the course of the game would have been very different. As it was, after the dreadful “wheels off waggon” session on the 4^th evening that led to the England declaration and the sensation that the West Indies had given up on the match, suddenly the steel was back again in the Caribbean performance. Once again, from one session to another the whole momentum of the series changed. The day was tense but, in reality, once the West Indies got through the first hour without losing a wicket, the result had an air of inevitability. The last ball of the fourth over of the morning England had the chance to put the game to bed: short delivery from Broad, Brathwaite could not control the ball - it went at a comfortable height to Cook, through his hands and on to the boundary for four runs. Instead of being 11-1 and England with an early breakthrough, the opening partnership went on to 46 from 16 overs before Broad finally ended it. More critically though, Brathwaite was on 4 at the time and went on to score 95 and to guide the West Indies to 197-3 when he fell finally. From the moment of that drop the force and the momentum was always with the West Indies and the young Padawans always had the measure of their supposed Jedi Masters.

After a poor first innings, yesterday, whenever something happened, which was all too rarely, Broad seemed to be involved. First the missed catch by Cook, then he had Powell caught by Stokes at 4^th slip, then he himself missed what would have been an incredible catch off his own bowling, but deflected the ball onto the stumps to leave Kyle Hope stranded. 46-0 had become 53-2 and the inevitable West Indian defeat seemed to be just a matter of time. Then again at 285-4, with nerve-ends jangling, Cook dropped Shai Hope off Broad, ending any real chance of a late panic. Broad was not a happy bunny. Even then there was time still for Stokes to drop Blackwood too – a sitter – at 316-4. After seven catches and a run-out were missed by the West Indies, England showed that they were just as fallible in the field. One wonders if there were sighting problems at the ground, because even normally extremely reliable fielders were dropping catches.

On a day when Moeen was expected to be the main threat, he cut an unhappy figure: two dropped catches off his bowling and too many bad balls. The suspicion that he dislikes the pressure of being expected to be the match-winner on the last day of a Test seemed to be confirmed. Moeen, like Graeme Swann did before him, likes getting an early wicket; when he does, the bounce is there and he starts to fizz – yesterday, there was no fizz, no zip in his action and, indeed, after a promising first over the previous evening, little real threat however, to be fair, he also saw those two catches go down off his bowling; maybe, if the first of them had been taken, he might have clicked into life. Less forgivable was the lack of threat from the seamers. Stuart Broad bowled with some fire, but little luck and, after a wonderful start, Jimmy Anderson seemed to be missing some spark, while Woakes and Stokes just served to release the pressure on the batsmen.

Against the West Indian side of the 1^st Test England would still have won. This one though played sensibly, failed to panic even when they lost a wicket and hunted down the target like a pack of wolves stalking their prey. When the run rate required started to rise, the ball started to fly to the boundary, easing any run-rate pressure and when chances were missed, they made England pay.

It was the 9^th longest 4^th innings in 51 Tests at Headingley (5 of the 8 longer ones were in losing causes), the 20^th highest successful 4^th innings chase in Tests, the 2^nd highest successful chase ever at Headingley and an object lesson in hunting-down an apparently extremely tough target.

This being cricket, probably England fans are as delighted as the West Indians. It might no longer be true in all parts of the world, but the practice of celebrating the deserved success of the opposition still exists in the English game. After a desperately disappointing South African side were dispatched, England needed proper practice against realistic opposition. Even more so, almost everyone wants West Indian cricket to rise again. However, native caution suggests that we have seen so many good one-off West Indian performances and so many false dawns that, unless this result is followed up in the 3^rd Test it will look like just another frustrating reminder of a bygone age. However, at least in this Test, players such as Brathwaite, Shannon Gabriel, Blackwood and Shai Hope have shown that there is hope for West Indian cricket and that talent continues to be produced. We saw in the 1^st Test that there are Test-quality players even in this severely weakened squad: one hopes that better governance from the WICB will give the young players the chance to develop and thrive, remembering that the West Indies are the current holders of the U19 World Cup, so serious talent is still coming through, despite everything. What the West Indies can ill afford is to lose these players too to the T20 circuses that have led to the WICB banishing all their biggest stars. Think of how much Brathwaite and Hope could learn if they were able to play their Test cricket alongside players such as Chris Gayle and Lendl Simmons for the next two years.

Back in 2004, Brian Lara was finishing his career, but the West Indies could field a pace attack of Jermaine Lawson, Fidel Edwards, Tino Best, Pedro Collins, Corey Collymore and Adam Stanford. It was an attack of frightening potential, that could have been every bit as great as the attacks of the ‘80s and ‘90s but, little by little, they either never developed as they should have, or simply drifted away. The memory of that team should serve as a dreadful warning to the WICB that they either look after their current crop of youngsters or they may not get another set of talented youngsters to lose.

Many England fans have condemned Joe Root’s declaration on the fourth evening. Just why, is a mystery. England were on top. The West Indies looked defeated and 99% of the cricketing world expected the loss of early wickets and a rapid spiral to defeat. Root saw the unexpected chance to win and to seal the series and went after it. Attack, not caution was the right approach. The opprobrium if he had batted on into the final morning would have been terrible to behold from the self-same fans who attacked his supposedly over-generous declaration.

For now, we are back to Square One. The Lord’s Test will be an unexpected decider. Given England’s record of losing the final Test of series over the last four years, they can ill-afford not to bring their A-Game to Lord’s. The West Indies will know that they have a wholly unexpected chance of a series win at a ground where England often underperform (W10 D4 L4 in the last 10 years, but W4 D2 L3 in the last 5 years and 3 defeats and a draw in the last 6 Tests there).

With Tom Westley given a, presumably final, chance to succeed, the only likely doubt is whether to go with Woakes or Roland-Jones as third seamer. One assumes that on his home ground, Roland-Jones has to play. England can scant afford to experiment or to take risks and the tight, mean line and length of Roland-Jones will help to bring a discipline to the attack that was so lacking in Leeds.

South Africa v England, 3rd Test, Day 5: Moeen Makes His Point

 

South Africa v England, 3^rd Test, Day 5: Moeen Makes His Point

July 31^st 2017

At the start of play the England target was to remove one or both overnight batsmen in the first hour. For South Africa, it was to see out the first hour and then build for Lunch.

For much of the time the atmosphere was one of inevitability such that the chat in the TMS box seemed almost peripheral to the cricket. This got to the point that Jon Agnew was able to pass a good fraction of one sleepy passage of play with an elaborate wind-up of Geoff Boycott. Boycott, bless him, fell for it completely. So clever and plausible was the story concocted and so complete the collaboration from the rest of the team, that hundreds of thousands of fans must genuinely have believed that Boycott’s famous hundredth hundred at Headingley on August 11^th 1977 was going to be struck from the record books. Sir Geoffrey’s reactions were tightly controlled (just as well), but witnesses could see that an explosion was building. Just as Sir Geoffrey launched into a brief denunciation of the plan on the lines of “that’s rooooobish that is!” (still, amazingly, without expletives), Jon Agnew responded calmly and matter-of-factly with “it’s also a complete wind-up”, before explaining how the team had collaborated to concoct a false press release from the ICC. Boycott’s reaction was a heartfelt “You MUPPET!!!” which left everyone helpless with laughter (including, one suspects, many listeners).

Why could the TMS team completely ignore the cricket in the middle? More than an act of God, it was an act of Roland-Jones. As the stand between Elgar and Bavuma prospered and passed a hundred, as the overs ticked by and nothing much seemed to be happening, the pitch not doing much, Joe Root must have started to wonder if he was going to suffer a new humiliation as captain, with South Africa wriggling out of what looked like a lost position. Showers were threatened later in the day. Surely Elgar and Bavuma couldn’t, could they?

The early thrust of Stokes and Broad was seen off and, as the advert goes, Joe Root decided to “make it Toblerone”. Two overs passed with little incident. Two overs of Moeen at the other end too passed with little of note. Not a lot going on. Pitch friendly. Ball soft. Weather kind. And then the unexpected.

The first ball of Tobias Skelton Roland-Jones’s third over was straight. Bavuma defended. Big shout. Turned down by Alem Dar.

And then something happened that, at Trent Bridge, would have needed divine intervention to come to pass: a sensible referral by England. Three reds. Marginally hit pad before bat. OUT!

In comes Vernon Philander. First ball nips back nicely. Philander pads up. Oh dear! It was a repeat of Faf du Plessis’s “Mike Gatting moment”. 150-4 and cruising becomes 150-6 and in deep trouble. It could so easily have been even worse as the hat-trick ball was edged and only just failed to carry to Ben Stokes.

Even then, Elgar and Morris seemed to be carrying South Africa to Lunch. Once again, a partnership started to build. Once again, South Africa could not make it count. What is more, it was the last ball before Lunch when Morris played a loose shot that he almost got away with because it rebounded off Bairstow’s leg, just within range of the diving Stokes.

It was a recurring theme as South Africa tried to save the match. It is why it all seemed so low-key and inevitable. Partnerships of 21, 27, 108, 45 & 47 all got going, but were cut off before they could become too worrying. Three batsmen made 20s or 30s, but could not push on to the 50s that Elgar needed to come at the other end if he were to save the match. Whenever there was a ray of hope for South Africa, you knew that they would be unable to make it stick.

Even then there was a final twist. After Lunch Elgar and Maharaj started one of those annoying partnerships that delays the inevitable. After two quiet overs, runs started to come in a flood: 12 off one Roland-Jones over, 12 off his next, 6 from Moeen who seemed rather innocuous.  Ben Stokes relieved Roland-Jones, presumably to provide three tight overs from one end before the new ball. There were ten dot balls broken by a single and, suddenly, Moeen produced one of those magic balls that he seems capable of when he relaxes.

Tossed-up. Into the footmarks. Grips. Elgar goes at it hard. Outside edge. Straight to Stokes.

Next ball. The only difference is that Elgar’s drive is replaced by Rabada’s push. The delivery, the edge and the catch are identical.

Would Stokes be a gentleman with Moeen hanging on a hat-trick, but six balls from Stokes to come? Maharaj is suddenly shotless, but keeps out the six. No great drama.

Morkel’s first ball is delivered in the middle of a fielders’ convention. Morkel misses. The ball slams into pad. Umpire Wilson waits and waits and finally shakes his head. And, with that shake, eleven fielders are jerked into making the T-sign simultaneously as if the umpire were pulling their strings.

“Going down leg”, say the commentators.

Then: “this might be close”.

Then: “I think that he might be out”.

Then: “it *IS* going to be out!”

It is not a No Ball. No edge. Pitching in line. Impact in line. Hitting full on leg stump. The review process ratchets-up the drama as the TV umpire Kumar Dhamasena goes through the checks one by one, like a Prosecuting Attorney presenting Exhibit A, Exhibit B, … and requesting a conviction. Three reds.

“You can give that out. You are on camera now.”

Cue screams of delight and wild celebrations.

Moeen has the first hat-trick in an Oval Test. It was the first by an England spinner since 1938 and only the third time that victory in a Test was sealed with a hat-trick (the last was in 1902).

Having been discarded by many fans as not worth his place in the side after the Tests in India, Moeen Ali has 18 wickets at 14.7 in three Tests in 2017 at a strike rate of 26.7. Of all bowlers who have taken at least 10 wickets this year, the next best is Jimmy Anderson, with a strike rate of 43.5. Moeen cannot possibly keep up this rate of success but, since the end of the 2016 season, he has 39 wickets at 29.9 in 10 Tests, despite a dry spell in India where he took just 3 wickets in the last 3 Tests of the series.

Why do people keep questioning his place in the side?

So, since the end of the 2016 season, Moeen Ali’s contribution has been:

10 Tests

·       39 wickets at 29.9

·       636 runs at 33.5, with 2x100 & 3x50.

That is quite a contribution for a player regarded by many as a journeyman who is not good enough. Moeen has made his point. Quietly, but he has made it.

Now, we move on to Old Trafford and the 4^th Test. The hint is that the pitch will have a little more life. Trevor Bayliss has hinted that England will not need the extra batsman and suddenly, it seems, England have all manner of healthy problems.

1.     Who misses out?

Of the three debutants, Toby Roland-Jones took 8 wickets and made the vital breakthroughs in both innings. Tom Westley made 25 and 59 and looked calm and unfussed. It would be hard to drop either. Dawid Malan is the most vulnerable, with 1 & 10, getting two very good balls, although it has not passed unnoticed that both were in-swinging Yorkers that he failed to get bat on: there is a vulnerability there. However, Malan has earned his chance and showed in his T20 debut that he has the ability and the steel to make a success of an international career.

If Gary Ballance were fit, the most obvious player to make way would be Malan, with Ballance replacing him at #5, even if you feel that Malan would get another chance as soon as humanly possible. As it is, Ballance is not yet ready but, he has been assured that he is the man in possession when he is ready to come back.

2.     What about the balance of the side?

The pundits, without exception, liked the balance of the side, with 5 specialist bats, followed by 3 genuine all-rounders. With Bairstow at #7 and Moeen at #8 and Roland-Jones at #9, there was a formidable sting in the England tail. 183-5 became 316-8 in the first innings and 202-5 became 313-8 in the second innings.

However, Trevor Bayliss is hinting that he wants to play Liam Dawson at Old Trafford. If he does, Malan looks like being the player to make way, although you could suggest playing Dawson instead of a seamer. A much less plausible option, suggested by some pundits is to drop Jennings (who has been promised the four Tests) and ask Westley to open: this is the sort of fudge that has been universally condemned in the past.

Again, the balance of the side could depend on the weather forecast. The threat of rain and seam bowling conditions sealed Dawson’s fate at The Oval; a hot, dry spell may seal his place at Old Trafford.

3.     What about Woakes and Ball?

Chris Woakes will surely go to Australia. He will also be ready to play again come the 1^st Test v West Indies on August 17^th: who is rested to give him a game? If Jake Ball is going to go to Australia, does he get a Test, or will be played only in the ODIs and T20 that follow the West Indies series? With injured players coming back and looking for games, competition for places is going to be increasingly fierce.

4.     Can Alex Hales be re-commissioned?

Alex Hales is producing the sort of incredibly destructive form that got David Warner his first cap before he had even played a First Class match. Although Hales opens in limited overs and T20, he now bats in the middle order in First Class cricket. There are people who think that his form is now so exceptional that England cannot pass-up on his talent. Can he be fitted into the England middle-order at #5? With Tom Westley looking a good fit at #3 you can make a case for a middle order of Westley, Root, Hales, Stokes, Bairstow & Moeen that would give more than one side pause for thought.

However, right now England’s first problem is to close out the series.  Recently, far too many Test victories have been followed by a defeat in the next game. There has also been a pattern: England have won 14 of their last 17 home Tests batting first, but only 4 of 14 when batting second. The facile suggestion is to win the Toss and bat at Old Trafford, but a far more convincing demonstration would be to lose the Toss and win the match.

The keys to the England win at The Oval were:

·       Winning the Toss

·       Philander’s incomprehensible selection

·       Taking advantage and posting a solid first innings score

·       South Africa returning to the timid and fragile batting of the 1^st Test

And, almost more than anything else

·       Much better use of DRS.

Now, England have to show that it was the 2^nd Test horror show that was the anomaly in this series and South Africa have just 4 days to re-group. Which England and which South Africa will turn up in Manchester? England cannot rely on South Africa easing their way by making another dreadful selection mistake.

England v India: 3rd ODI, Dorabelle Believe

 

England v India: 3^rd ODI

Dorabelle Believe

January 22^nd 2017

It has taken a long time coming. A win in an international on this tour, although not, as some have stated falsely, the first win of the tour (England did win the first 50-over warm-up against India A). It has been a tough tour, first in the Tests and then in the ODIs as a very strong Indian side has consistently produced that bit of magic that turns an even contest into a one-sided one. England have competed in the Tests (their average first innings score was 390 – the previous winter South Africa’s was 150, albeit on more difficult pitches). In the first two ODIs England had threatened to win both games, but fell just short.

In this series England have scored 350-7, 366-8 and 321-8. They have shown the cynics that the matches would not be a series of mismatches, with England’s batsmen floundering helplessly against the Indian spinners. Instead the matches have turned on small moments: one or two big overs, India taking a key wicket at a key moment while England could not. The differences between the two teams have been small.

It was a phenomenal effort from both teams to amass 637 runs on a pitch on which India must have hoped to limit England to 220 with their “A Game” and probably not much more than 260 with their “B Game”. It took fourteen deliveries at the start for a batsman to lay bat on ball, as deliveries bounced and hooped around. Right from the start if the bowler landed the ball on the right spot it was well-nigh unplayable. It was a situation in which England could so easily have slipped to 30-3 and left the game almost over when it had barely started. Despite that, Jason Roy and Sam Billings rode their luck, hit the bad balls when they came and generally punished India for not quite being on their game.

Even when a batsman fell – and armchair critics foamed at the mouth at some of the dismissals – someone else came in and stepped up to the mark. After an England wicket fell to a poor stroke, one particular critic explained to all on one particular forum that batting properly was not rocket science. Having the advantage of actually being a rocket scientist, I can say that if batting were as easy as the armchair critics believe, I would be an international batsman too and not a rocket scientist. Batting is all about making the correct decision in the 0.6-0.8s between the moment that the ball leaves the bowler’s hand and the moment that it reaches the bat. The bowler is trying to get you to make the wrong choice in guiding the sweet spot of the bat (which is at a different point for each bat) to its encounter with the ball. Pressure. The crowd. All are trying to make you make the wrong decision. The greatest batsmen are able to make the highest percentage of correct decisions and adapt best to all the variables that affect how the ball reaches and leaves the bat.

Batting (and international cricket in general) is very similar to rocket science in many respects. You have a battery of highly-trained individuals, each with their own tasks, trying to work together as a team, making a series of highly-pressurised split-second decisions and trying to get every one right. Get a decision wrong and the results are disastrous and, sometimes, catastrophic. A small error at a critical juncture can lose you your mission (in cricket, read “match”, “tournament”, “series”, …), cost a huge amount of money, cost you your job and be mercilessly replayed time and again in slow motion for an audience of millions on the evening news. The fact is that the armchair critics can watch time and again in slow motion and without pressure, while the poor beggar in the middle has to do it at full speed in a split second with no second viewing.

Television and Internet are becoming merciless. When Jason Roy was out, the talk was not that he had scored 65 from 56 balls and given England yet another fast start (his scores on the tour have been 62, 25, 73, 82 and 65), it was of him “giving it away”, of “Joe Root Syndrome” (50s not becoming destructive centuries). Roy has taken England away at 6-an-over for the first twenty overs in each game, setting the platform for the middle order.

When India finally got the ball (and the front foot) in the right place – getting Jonny Bairstow with a sucker punch only to find that you have gone well over the line was sloppy – suddenly batting looked much harder, especially with turn on offer as well as extravagant movement for the seamers. England can feel indebted to Ben Stokes’s resurgence as a limited-overs player now that he has a set role in the side at #6 and Chris Woakes’s injection of self-belief when almost everyone questioned why he kept getting chances. To get to 321 when they were 246-6 with only 7 overs to go was a superb effort. Even when there is a mid-innings squelch, more often than not the lower middle order helps to set things right.

Today was one of those days when the finishers hung around. This is what lost England the 2^nd ODI: while India had an established batsman at the crease at the death, England’s fell a few overs earlier, robbing the innings of critical momentum and taking maybe twenty runs off the total compared with what it might have been. To add 73 in 39 balls of bombardment from Woakes and Stokes set a total that England knew that they could defend. It also gave England the vital factor of momentum.

To win, India needed the breaks to fall their way. England certainly made things ruinously hard for themselves at times. First ball of the innings Chris Woakes bowled a vicious lifter, Rahane gloved it cleanly to Jos Buttler… and no one appealed. How did India reply? The last two balls of the over sailed to the boundary for a six and a four. Willey  bowled a fine over and removed Rahane: would India be cautious? Not a bit of it! Kohli’s response to a superb delivery from Woakes was to hammer the next two balls for boundaries. It seemed that the Indian tactic was to intimidate. Willey bowled a nine-ball over with three wides and then walked off holding his shoulder.

India were either playing and missing or hammering boundaries. There was no concept of “safety first”. Even when Jake Ball dropped Kohli India the frenetic activity did not reduce. India seemed to be betting on everything falling their way and England cracking, but with the Required Run Rate rising steadily, he who chances his arm will inevitably run out of luck in the end. England needed to stay calm and play to a plan, which was what they did, despite being a bowler short and with Pandya and Jadhav putting a century stand and seeming to provide a case of dejá vú. With Morgan forced to bring back Stokes for the slog and Indian fans gloating in memory, first Pandya then Jadeja took one risk too many. Ashwin came and went. Suddenly things were level again when India must have thought that the match was won with something to spare. 27 required from 18 balls. 23 required from 12. 16 from the last 6 and Jadhav on 80* on strike? The match still provided twists and turns, but showed how much Woakes and England have grown. Ten taken from the first two balls of Woakes’s over. Six needed from four. Surely India’s game? Dot ball. Dot ball. Six needed from two. Jadhav swings. Billings takes the catch and Woakes finishes with another dot for good measure.

In a pressure finish, with cool heads needed, England showed just how much progress they have made. The side are far from the finished article, but can compete with the best now. It is only a consolation win, but any win in India is hard-earned.

When Harry Houdini died he had promised to try to contact his adored wife from beyond the grave. To ensure that she was not conned by a fake, he gave his wife a phrase that he would use in any message from the beyond: “Dorabelle believe”. Houdini might well have approved of the escape engineered by England when it seemed that another victory had slipped their grasp but, instead of directing his message at his wife, he might well instead direct it at England’s fickle fans “just believe”. This side will win some and lose some, but have come so far since the last World Cup.