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.

West Indies v England, 1st Test, Day 4: Implosion and the Fifteenth Largest Defeat by Runs in Test History

 

West Indies v England

1st Test, Day 4: Implosion and the Fifteenth Largest Defeat by Runs in Test History

January 26^th 2019

 

With England 215-4, five minutes before Tea and two set batsmen at the crease, England should have been setting their sights on taking the match well past Lunch on the last day. Victory was impossible, but an honourable defeat was well within reach. Who knows? Some rain and a bit of bloody-mindedness and an incredible escape might even be possible.

Reality was that two wickets fell to poor shots in twelve deliveries and England went to Tea knowing that it was all over bar the shouting.

The last six wickets fell for 31 runs in 71 balls. It was a miserable collapse on a pitch that had flattened-out, against a spinner who did not spin the ball.

The final margin was 381 runs. The largest ever margins of defeat by runs are listed here.

It was all so unnecessary. Burns and Jennings had continued where they had left off the night before. For fifty-two balls of the morning session, Jennings blocked-up an end and Burns accumulated busily at the other. It was the best opening partnership for a year and a half. Had it continued for an hour longer, the great escape could have become a reality. Burns looked set for a century. Jennings looked to have done the hard work and set up a big score for the taking. Leaden-footed waft. Thanks very much. And an end was open.

All the top six got starts, but only Rory Burns past 34 and he gave his wicket away too, just before the fifty partnership with Jonny Bairstow. Gave it away, as did all the top eight.

In the harsh light of a huge defeat, some fans are calling this the worst England side ever. It is not. This side beat India and Sri Lanka and had won six of its previous seven Tests. But it is a side with a couple of key weaknesses. And the team that was picked was not the one for this pitch. England misread the pitch completely and probably relied on winning the Toss and batting.

In the cold light of day, Sam Curran’s 14, 17 did not compensate for match figures of 29-4-133-1. Even had Stuart Broad scored a king pair, there is a feeling that he would have got much more out of the pitch than Sam Curran and kept down the West Indian first innings score. However, before we get all misty-eyed, Stuart Broad is not the player he was 5 or 6 years ago. He has brilliant performances with the ball, but they are becoming rarer. The fans have been questioning his continued selection for about as long as one can remember.

Probably Broad will play in Antigua, where a low, slow pitch is expected that will most-likely not suit him at all. Sam Curran’s selection was down to the idea that he could provide variety in the attack, a holding role, knocking-over wickets with the new ball and plenty of runs down the order. Now, the Curran bubble has burst: with his lack of speed, can he take wickets when not faced with a seaming, swinging greentop? Can he convert himself into a solid batsman in the lower middle order and fourth seamer?

We will never know what would have happened had Stuart Broad played. Maybe he would have had one of his nightmare matches in which he can find neither line nor rhythm. Or maybe he would have taken 6-20 on the first morning. You can play “what if” all you like.

The other two positions that are looking wide open for the 2^nd Test are that of Keaton Jennings and of Adil Rashid.

I am a fan of both, but it is hard to see how either can play at Antigua. England have three Tests before the Ashes and one of them is a four-day match against Ireland. The selectors have to cut their losses with Jennings and either say that he will play the 1^st Test against Australia WHATEVER HAPPENS, or play his replacement. It is just possible that Jennings will play the 2^nd Test and that a decision will be made after it, in which case, almost certainly Joe Denly – no longer now an opener – would debut in the final Test, unless a convenient injury allows an opener to be called-up from the Lions. Like so many recent openers for England, Jennings has trouble outside his off stump. Sam Robson was a classic example. Also, like so many openers tried by England, Jennings scored a century early in his Test career, seemed set for great things, and then faded away. There is something very Rob Key-like about Jennings: in his last 21 innings, he has reached double figures 17 times, but passed 40 just 4 times; his median score in those 21 innings is 17. In other words, Jennings is getting a start, getting in, almost every time, but then getting out. It is something that Rob Key did a lot – he had the occasional big innings where he broke big, but was never really in and could fall at any time.

However, for all his success last season in Division 2 on some frequently very difficult pitches, there is a feeling that it is too late for Joe Denly. I like him a lot as a cricketer and am delighted to see him back in England colours, but Denly would be another stop-gap as a non-specialist and a high-risk strategy. He was taken to Sri Lanka as a potential #3 and third spinner and proved to be so far off the pace that he could fill neither role, causing a change in selection strategy for the Tests.

The other decision is Adil Rashid or Jack Leach, although a case could be made for dropping Moeen Ali. Again, caution. Adil Rashid, like Moeen Ali, is polarising opinion. We forget that both have done great things for England and recently too. Adil Rashid will never be Shane Warne. He will always have innings and matches in which his control and direction simply do not exist. At the same time, he can bowl an awful spell, be sent into the naughty-boy outfield for three or four hours and then come back for a second spell and bowl a delivery that turns a match. England gambled on his ability to deliver a couple of explosive balls that change the momentum of a match.

Moeen, who has been messed around something rotten, shuffled up and down the order, is now on a bad trot with the bat. Even a return to batting at #8, where he has had some of his best innings, simply has not worked for him. He looks completely at sea. And, despite a spell with the ball in the second innings in which he briefly threatened to turn the match, he could not follow through. Moeen’s performances with the ball against India and Sri Lanka should make him un-droppable, but the fans are unforgiving… and have short memories… just ask Stuart Broad.

Would Jack Leach have done better than Adil Rashid? Would Rashid + Leach, Leach + Moeen, or Moeen + Adil Rashid have been the best combination? Going back thirty years, England had Edmonds and Emburey. Classic Slow Left Arm and Off-Break. They could attack, or bowl long holding spells and the fact that their stock ball went in opposite directions made them a powerful complementary force. It is not difficult to believe that Leach would have complemented Moeen better than Adil Rashid, even if he did not offer the prospect of that occasional, explosive ball. However, it is not hard to imagine that sooner, rather than later, Jack Leach will pair up with Dominic Bess in a Test in a partnership that could continue for fifteen years.

What to think of the West Indies performance? They were brilliant. They wanted it more. They out-played, out-fought and out-thought England. Despite years of conflict between players and Board. Despite cricket no longer being such a part of West Indian life. Despite First Class cricket in the Caribbean dying, brilliant cricketers come through. This time it has been 22-year-old Shimron Hetmyer with 81 in the first innings that set up a winning total for his side. Jason Holder, Kemar Roach, Shane Dowrich and Royston Chase have added their names to the long list of players who have bloodied England in recent series between the two sides. Will this be yet another false dawn for the West Indies? You would not bet against it, although fans would love it to be the start of a genuine, sustained resurgence of West Indian cricket. As was pointed out before the series, the West Indian attack has a fine record over the last year. We knew that they would test the England batsmen: that much was no surprise. The question is: can the dysfunctional WICB keep its young players and not lose the older hands? This is its biggest problem. World cricket needs a strong West Indies side, but governance has been so poor over the last decade that one wonders whether or not yet another new dawn for Caribbean cricket will turn quickly again into black night.

The questions for England are: do they twist or stick with selection and, can they get back into this series?

Right now, England are 1-0 down and need to win both remaining Tests to win the series. They have also shown enough vulnerability to encourage the West Indies to produce result pitches for those two Tests.

 

Sri Lanka v England, 3rd Test Day 4: Tea Kills Sri Lankan Hopes of a Miracle

 

Sri Lanka v England

3^rd Test Day 4: Tea Kills Sri Lankan Hopes of a Miracle

November 26^th 2018

 

There have only been 8 successful fourth innings chases at the SSC, while twelve times, including today, the chase has ended in defeat. The highest successful chases are:

·       326-5: Sri Lanka v Zimbabwe, 1988

·       172-4: Sri Lanka v West Indies, 2005

·       142-5: Sri Lanka v England, 1993

·       131-5: Pakistan v Sri Lanka, 2000

·       74-6: England v Sri Lanka, 2001.

For a significant part of the afternoon session, Sri Lankan fans started to dream of pulling-off an incredible heist. Had Tea come half an hour later, it is possible that Sri Lanka would have won, given how Lakmal and Pushpakumara had added 58 in 12 overs and were grinding-down the bowling to helplessness with a mixture of solid defence and hard swinging.

The deficit at Tea was 43 and horrible thoughts were rising in the backs of the minds of the visiting fans, as the home fans started to wonder if they were going to see a historic turnaround. Numerous times though a significant Sri Lankan partnership has broken just after Tea, changing the momentum of a match: what Joe Root could not obtain with a bowling change, he invariably managed with a cup of Ceylon tea – rival to Darjeeling as the best cuppa in the world and, in this series, a lethal wicket-taker. While Pushpakumara was swinging merrily, they were distracted from the nerves that come with knowing that a target, previously out of reach, was almost within touching distance. A tenth wicket partnership can be gloriously uninhibited when it knows that victory is impossible. Had Tea come with fewer than 20 wanted to win, you can imagine that the nerves would have been transferred to the fielding side and that Sri Lanka would have been, perhaps, the favourites. As it was, the batsmen trooped back to the pavilion just before the fielding side reached a state of total disarray.

The result was almost inevitable. You felt that the first two overs after the interval would be the danger: if the batsmen got through them, they might yet knock off the runs; if they survived five overs after Tea, panic might set in to the fielding side, but that those first two overs might well be decisive.

Fourth ball after Tea, Lakmal got a ball that straightened just enough to hit the stumps. Before Tea, most likely he would have dealt with it. After Tea, the instincts and the concentration were dulled just enough for the ball to miss Lakmal’s prod. Jack Leach had the last wicket of the series, sealed the 0-3 win and, to boot, equalled Moeen Ali’s tally of wickets for the series and ensured that even though Ben Stokes topped the bowling averages for the series, he would pip Perera, Moeen and Sandakan to top the averages for spin bowlers.

England had made heavy weather of finishing off a spirited opposition. As predicted last night, the biorhythms were off in the morning, the nightwatchman did hang around and the momentum was lost, with a substantial sixth wicket partnership threatening to bring Sri Lanka back into the match. As though has been the Sri Lankan wont throughout the series, just when their batsmen were getting on top, they threw it away. The stand was at 102. Mendis was approaching a century. And a senseless runout stopped both Mendis and the partnership. There were 22, fifties in the series – 11 by England, 11 by Sri Lanka – yet the only four centuries were scored by Englishmen. No England batsman was dismissed between 64 and 107, but six Sri Lankan batsmen were. Adil Rashid bowled a googly. Roshen Silva pushed it away and set off for two. Leach fielded and threw, right-handed, with lethal precision at the non-striker’s end and an end was opened. A flat England side were re-invigorated and Moeen and Leach shared the last four wickets: the first two to catches to Keaton Jennings, who took six in the match, eight in the series and, surprisingly, was pipped to the title of leading catcher, not by either of the wicket-keepers, but by Ben Stokes, with 9[1]. Jennings only went to the Short Leg position after Rory Burns took a sickening blow there: you wonder how many catches he might have had in the series if he had fielded there for all three Tests.

Much has been made of the retirement of Herath for Sri Lanka, but this is largely a red herring as he has not for the last couple of years wanted to play even a full 3-match series. While he played both Tests at home against South Africa, he played just one in the shared series in the Caribbean. The overall impression was of two limited sides, with England always just a little too good for their opponents, particularly at the critical moments. Sri Lanka though are nowhere near as poor as some of the apologists have claimed: you do not beat South Africa 2-0 with a poor team and, in that series, all five Sri Lankan bowlers, all of whom also played against England too, averaged under 17.3 with the ball. Against bowlers who had been devastating against South Africa, England found a method that worked so well that the same bowlers took their wickets at triple the cost.

It is not a brilliant England side. There are too many manifest weaknesses for that, but it has the makings of a pretty good one if it can consolidate in the New Year in the Caribbean.  

 

---

[1] 8 caught and 2 stumped for Ben Foakes. 7 caught and 1 stumped for Dickwella.

Sri Lanka v England, 2nd Test Days 5: Sri Lankan Spin to Defeat

 

Sri Lanka v England

2^nd Test Day 5: Sri Lankan Spin to Defeat

November 18^th 2018

 

At 176-4 and 221-5, Sri Lanka seemed well on the way to a victory that had appeared to be impossible when Jack Leach had reduced them to 26-3 inside the first eight overs. At Tea on Day 4, Matthews and Dickwella were batting with supreme confidence; England looked out of ideas and Joe Root was wondering where a wicket would come from. Twelve overs later, the match was over.

At the end of the reckoning, neither the five-run penalty was not decisive, nor was this to be the Test match with the highest aggregate without a century partnership. It was not even close in the end: a margin of 57 is quite convincing. In the end, England were just a little better when it counted.

However, the biggest single difference between the sides, apart from the spinners, has been the fact that England have the only three centuries of the series. There have been fifteen fifties in the series so far: eight by England and seven by Sri Lanka. Discounting Ben Foakes’ unbeaten 65, the respective conversion rates have been three of seven England fifties have become centuries, while not one of the seven Sri Lankan fifties has been converted. Six of the eight highest scores so far in the series have come from England. And, in all four innings, England have scored faster than the Sri Lankans by about half a run per over, keeping the Sri Lankan bowlers under pressure.

It has to be said that England’s bowling in this match has not reached the standards of the 1^st Test. Jack Leach bowled three consecutive full tosses before finally hitting his length but, when he did, he was far too good for the batsmen. Credit to him that at least the full tosses showed that he was trying to pitch the ball up further. With Sri Lanka nine-down and both Moeen and Leach with four, it was a race between them to take the last wicket. Leach won it and obtained a first, five-wicket haul in just his third Test, suggesting that a future in which the availability of all-rounders allows England to play Moeen and Leach in a twin-spin attack.

Despite that, too much of the bowling in the Test has been too short and has missed the testing length that would have used the devil in the pitch. Adil Rashid had a spell earlier in the match when he struggled to get the ball anywhere near the correct length and line although, in general, he has been hamstrung by the fact that, when he did get it right, LBW was ruled out because he had to pitch outside leg and the ball usually turned too much to hit the stumps anyway. Moeen bowled some magic balls and quite a few that were not so magical. However, through the series, in the bowler v bowler analysis, England’s bowlers have trumped their Sri Lankan opponents, being just a little better, a little more consistent – although some critics would say that “a little less inconsistent” is more accurate, here – having fewer bad spells. One wonders what Muttiah Muralitharan would have done with this pitch.

A bowler v bowler comparison over the two Tests is interesting:

·       The top wicket-takers of the series are Moeen Ali and Dilruwan Perera, both off-spinners: both have 14 wickets, but Moeen’s have cost two runs fewer each and at a strike rate of 36 instead of 45.

·       Off-spinner, Akila Dananjaya, has made one of the great international starts, with three, five-wicket hauls in his first five Tests, which have brought him 27 wickets, but Jack Leach has taken three more wickets in the series at half the average and with a significantly better strike rate.

·       The support act has been Adil Rashid, for England and the combination of Rangana Herath and Malinda Pushpakumara, both Slow Left Arm, for Sri Lanka. Adil Rashid’s 7 wickets at 30.9 look, on paper, to be a modest contribution to England’s success, but the same number of wickets for Herath and Pushpakumara have cost 46.7 each and their strike rate has been 84 against Adil Rashid’s 57.

Only in one area have Sri Lanka actually had an advantage and, surprisingly, that is in the seamers.

·       Sri Lanka have used just one seamer – the modestly named Ranasinghe Arachchige Suranga  Lakmal – whose 4 wickets at 40, with a strike rate of 65, have easily trumped the 3 wickets at 67 with a strike rate of 138 of Anderson, Curran and Stokes. That said, Lakmal has bowled just 43 overs in 4 innings, while England’s trio have bowled 69 overs, of which almost two-thirds (41 overs) have been delivered by Jimmy Anderson, who is just ahead of Jack Leach as the most economical bowler of the series (we are talking about just one run in a dozen overs as the difference in economy here).

However, the seamers have been bit-players through the series and to have a superiority there is certainly not going to turn a match.

It is facile to say that a not especially good England side have beaten a poor Sri Lanka. No doubt plenty of Australians will be happy to say that things will be very different next summer, but you can only beat what you have in front of you. England fans are not renowned for their lack of cynicism: when their side wins, the opposition is poor, when it loses, it is rubbish. Better sides than England have gone to Sri Lanka and come away a poor second best. South Africa were whitewashed 2-0 in July. Sri Lanka’s previous three series were away against India, Pakistan and Bangladesh: the last two series saw three wins from four matches, while India only beat them 1-0, to give Sri Lanka a W5 D3 L1 record since India won 3-0 in Sri Lanka in August 2017, at least, until England hit their shores.

England go to Colombo with the chance to obtain a rare series whitewash in Asia. It is possible that they could decide to stick with a winning eleven. It is also possible that Jimmy Anderson could be rested and Stuart Broad given a game. There is also a case for Jonny Bairstow to come into the side and to bat at #3, but that would have to be at the expense of a bowler, which, understandably, England would be reluctant to do, although if Sam Curran’s slight niggle were to rule him out, Bairstow for Curran would be one option. It will be interesting to see which way England will go with their selection.

England v Pakistan: 1st Test Preview - And the Winner is… Dom Bess!

 

England v Pakistan: 1^st Test Preview

And the Winner is… Dom Bess!

May 23^rd 2018

First: an apology… I never did wrap up the New Zealand series. Disappointment at the outcome – when you take wickets with the first two balls of the day and it is all downhill from there, it takes some effort to dredge up the effort to write. New Zealand held out comfortably for the draw and took the series. England were not good enough. New Zealand were good value for their win and deserved it thoroughly.

Then, a heavy schedule at work was followed by being signed-up by the View from the Outfield website to report on County cricket – if you don’t know View from the Outfield, you can find it at viewfromtheoutfield.com: it is well worth a read – which is taking two or three hours out of many of my evenings.

Another season, another series. Pakistan are the warm-up act for the summer’s main series against India, with an ODI series against Australia sandwiched in between. For England, this summer bears a depressing similarity to 2014, when England played after a 5-0 defeat in Australia, then lost for the first time at home to Sri Lanka and were being thoroughly outplayed by India before Moeen Ali went from being “Moeen Who??” to being “the beard that is feared”.

There is an irony in the fact that, having been a fixture in the England side for four years since his Lord’s debut against Sri Lanka in 2014, Moeen was almost certainly not even mentioned by the selectors for this Test. In India and Australia over the last two winters, England have given debuts to Liam Dawson, Zafir Ansari, Mason Crane and Jack Leach. Ansari has retired. Liam Dawson’s star has faded to the extent that he is unlikely to play another Test. Crane is just coming back from serious injury and now it is the turn of Jack Leach, who took Mason Crane’s place in New Zealand when Crane was injured, to have a serious injury himself.

While short-sighted curmudgeons have been moaning about playing on “the beach at Taunton”, England are seeing it pay dividends. Jack Leach was one of the few successes on the Lion’s tour to the Caribbean and his spin-twin, Dom Bess, also came out of that tour with great credit with a maiden century (in the post-Lions, Champion county match) and wickets. He may have played only sixteen First Class matches and he may not be a regular in the Somerset side but, when he plays, he has often been lethal. Twenty years old and averaging four wickets per match in his short career, astute followers of the county game have known for a year that his Test match debut was just a matter of time: most people expected to be against Sri Lanka in the Autumn but, the attrition rate of spinners means that he will get an early chance to impress. Lest we forget, Alf Valentine had only played TWO First Class matches before he set about destroying the England batting in 1950.

It could all end in tears – England have tried spinner after spinner since the decline and fall of Swann and Monty – but remember that Nathan Lyon was the thirteenth spinner to be tried by Australia in a short space of time and he seems to have done okay.  There are plenty of cricketing reasons to believe that, come this Autumn, in Leach and Bess, England will take to Sri Lanka their most potent spin combination since 2011.

Do not expect miracles from Dom Bess. He has taken just one wicket so far this season on the seam-friendly pitches, as Somerset have relied so far on pace, but this game will be about his temperament and readiness. Bess will play, as England have already stated that he will provide the variety in a seam-heavy attack.

For England there are many questions:

·       Has Alistair Cook still got the hunger to score big runs? In 2017 he was scoring runs for fun for Essex before the Tests. In 2018, he has managed 84, 0, 26, 37 and 66. After a pretty dreadful winter, there is enough there to show that he is getting some form back but, will it last into the Pakistan Tests?

·       Mark Stoneman is lucky to hold his place. He scored 4x50 during the winter and bettered his best Test score three times, falling in single-figures just twice in seven Tests, but still has not passed 60. Can he make a definitive contribution and seal his place? He has reached 20 four times in seven innings this season for Surrey, but has yet to reach 30. In contrast, Keaton Jennings is on a run of 109, 126, 136, 73 and 69 for Lancashire. If Jennings can maintain this prolific form, it will be hard to ignore him.

·       What about Joe Root at #3? He prefers to bat at 4. It is well-chronicled that it is a long time since Root has converted a 50 into a century: he has been scoring 50s a-plenty, but the difference between the two sides in Australia was often the relative contributions of the captains. Can Root score big runs at #3 and improve his conversion statistics?

·       Is Ben Stokes ready for Tests again? We already know that he will miss one of the Tests against India as his charge for affray will come up in Bristol Crown Court, where he faces a possible sentence of three years in prison. How distracted is he by what is coming up and by the media circus that will follow him?

·       What about Jos Buttler? He will bat at 7 with a licence to play with freedom. However, he played just one red-ball game in 2017 and has struggled to adapt to Tests. Can he harness his incredible talents in Tests? His form, opening, in the IPL has been extraordinary, but that is a very different problem to batting in a Test.

·       Which way will England jump with the fourth seamer: Chris Woakes or Mark Wood? Woakes was bitterly disappointing in Australia and Mark Wood can hardly say that he seized his opportunity in New Zealand with both hands. Can either cut it long-term at Test level?

·       And, the $64000 question: how long have Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson got left? Anderson was masterful in Australia and Stuart Broad looks to be back to his best, but England know that Anderson is on borrowed time and Broad may have only two years left in him at this level, even if his form continues to justify his place.

Last time Pakistan toured England, they shared the series, celebrated wins with press-ups. They also became #1 in the ICC Test rankings to boot. Now they are #7 having barely won a match since. They beat Ireland, but not after Tim Murtagh and Kevin O’Brien gave them an almighty scare (in the end they were relieved to scramble over the line) and have been depressingly badly treated with the warm-ups, by having games against the hapless Northants and a weak Leicestershire: as preparation goes for a Test series the ECB should be embarrassed and ashamed by their lack of generosity as hosts.

It is quite likely that just four of the eleven players who faced England at Lord’s less than two years ago will be in the Pakistan XI. Like England, they desperately need a strong showing for their own credibility. Pakistan are mercurial: perhaps the most naturally talented cricketers in the world, they get too easily distracted by what they see as on and off-the-field conspiracies and, as a result, disintegrate far too easily. Just as England have to learn to cope with pitches taking big turn in India and the UAE, India and Pakistan have to learn to cope with a tinge of green in the pitch in England without screaming “foul!!” Cricket is intended to be played on grass and, in a wet and humid country, grass tends to grow green.

The bad news for England is that even a 2-0 series win – which seems to be totally implausible – will barely gain any ranking points: England need to win 1-0 even to stand still. Pakistan will remember what Sri Lanka did in 2014 and know that England are vulnerable and that there are questions against the name of almost every player in the XI; the Pakistanis will be only too happy to deepen the England crisis and are quite capable of doing it if they can retain their focus.

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

 

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

Dr Jekyll and Mr England

March 31^st 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

March 28^th 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either way, England cannot afford another defeat.

 

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

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

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

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