West Indies v England, 3rd Test, In Retrospect: Was this the real England?

 

West Indies v England

3^rd Test, In Retrospect: Was this the real England?

February 17^th 2019

 

The script was for an England side that always been chasing the game on this tour and that was in a fair degree of chaos, to stumble to a third defeat, bringing back shades of the ‘80s.

For the 3^rd Test there was yet another case of “all change”. The tour started with Anderson and Curran sharing the new ball and ended with England accepting that Anderson and Broad were the best pairing still. The fact that Anderson is already in his late thirties and could retire at any time and that Stuart Broad, although skilled, is clearly not the force that he was three of four years ago, shows just how unsuccessful England have been at finding adequate replacements. On this tour, Chris Woakes has been injured, although his form away from home has never shown the advances that his home form has and Ollie Stone was sent home injured, so neither got a chance to show what they could do. The inevitable conclusion though from what we have seen of Ben Stokes and Sam Curran is that the former is probably an excellent fourth seamer and the latter no better than fifth seamer away from home.

When, in three Tests, you play three different top threes, you know that you have problems. England’s decision to take just two specialist openers, both of whom were uncertain of their places, was probably conditioned by knowing that they would have almost no cricket outside the Tests for an extra opener, but it was rather like trying to cross the high-wire in a gale, without a safety net. That there are not many obvious candidates who have not been tried and that the Lions are having another poor tour, could also have conditioned the “cross your fingers and hope for the best” strategy.

At least there was some degree of logic to the Burns/Jennings/Denley configuration. By playing two specialist openers, Denly could play in his own, specialist position at #3. That meant that Moeen Ali and Jonny Bairstow could go back to the middle order, where they are undoubtedly more likely to score runs. Given that England’s strength in recent times has been the ability to hit back when the opposition have fired-out out three or four wickets cheaply, playing to that strength seemed at least, to be sensible.

The third Test, which I had to follow as best as I could from a meeting in the USA (sneaking glances at the score during the talks), provided a mixture of “more of the same” and big surprises. While the fans have, in general, been quite tolerant of Rory Burns’ hesitant start, the opprobrium for Keaton Jennings has been almost universal. However, England’s first innings provided a hint of just why the tour management were actually right to persist with both. Although the first wicket partnership was only 30, Burns and Jennings saw off the new ball and the new ball attack. Instead of being 30-3 from eight overs, England were 30-0 from 16, there were overs in the legs of Roach and Gabriel, who both ended up bowling a lot of overs  in the innings and the match and the openers had done the first part of their job at least.

Although Keaton Jennings fell, eventually, in the habitual way, driving without due care and attention, one detail of his tour has escaped the notice of his critics. Although there is a glaring lack of sufficiency in the “Runs” column against his name – 62 runs at 15.5 is most definitely insufficient – people have not looked at another column that is frequently ignored. When the critics were crying-out for batsmen to forget swinging the bat and just hang in there and tire the bowlers, who were the England batsmen who batted for most balls per innings during the series? The answer is surprising!

Ben Stokes	66 balls/innings
Keaton Jennings	65 balls/innings
Joe Root	60.3 balls/innings
Joe Denly	58.5 balls/innings
Jos Buttler	58 balls/innings

Although Jennings failed to capitalise, he was seeing-off the new ball. As has been pointed out, rarely does he fail to get a start but, once “in” does not stay in.

In the 1^st Test, England were 44-4 from 16.2 overs. In the 2^nd Test, it was 34-3 from 15.1 overs. Here, although the runs were coming in a trickle, crucially, the wickets were still intact. It was the thirty-third over when Rory Burns fell. For the first time in the series, Jos Buttler and Ben Stokes were coming in against an attack that was no longer fresh. It allowed the counter-attack to flourish. In the second innings it was even clearer: when Jennings fell, to leave England 73-2, it was the twenty-eighth over, the attack was a bowler short and Roach and Gabriel had each bowled more than thirty overs in the match already. For the first time in the series, England’s attacking middle order were coming up against tired bowlers who were not having things all their own way.

Although, in terms of runs, the total from the top three of 159 in the Test is far short of what England wanted, the 196 and 220 balls respectively that they survived in the two innings took up a total of just two minutes short of nine hours of play and helped to grind down the bowlers and make possible the match-winning contributions of Root, Buttler and Stokes further down the order. In a sense, England have got a sniff of the answer to their top-three conundrum. Of the top three, Burns averages 25 after twelve innings; Jennings averages 25.2 after thirty-two; and Denly 28 from four. None of them have made a solid case to play against Ireland, but there is just enough to suggest that Denly may be the #3 to play against Australia, making a success of the role and, if Burns gets runs against Ireland, he will get the full series. The biggest doubt is Jennings. While most fans and, to be fair, most of the pundits, think that he is unlikely to play against Australia, were he to make runs early in the season and other potential rivals, not, you can see why the tour management refuses to rule out Jennings continuing. Forget Denly as an all-rounder. At this level he is always going to bowl after Joe Root and mainly as a partnership-breaker, or to hurry-on the new ball but, just maybe, he can make a decent fist of batting at 3: even if he does not make big runs, to have someone in the Chris Tavaré role of blocking an end and tiring the bowlers, is a first step.

The other difference in this Test was the support bowling. After the initial thrust by Anderson and Broad was seen off, the openers had set a solid platform and England’s 277ao was looking well short of par, the change bowling changed the match. Not for the first time it was Moeen who made the breakthough but, this time, the support at the other end kept the pressure on when Moeen followed-up with a second, quick wicket. Maybe Mark Wood will never have such success again, but this time he was fit, he was eager and he was firing and, at least in the first innings, he was faster than Shannon Gabriel. Moeen picked the lock and then Mark Wood kicked the door down: his spell was 8-2-37-4, in sharp contrast to the rather gentle offerings of Sam Curran over the winter. When he came off, having racked his speed up to almost 95mph, the score was now 107-7 and England only had to wrap-up the tail, which they did. Despite the efforts of Shane Dowrich to steady the ship, once Broad knocked him over before he could do any great damage, Moeen and Mark Wood knocked-over the last two wickets in quick time.

With Toby Roland-Jones back bowling in the nets, if Mark Wood can stay fit, the Australians may find the England attack more hostile than they were expecting. Who knows though if Toblerone will get back to his best? Who knows if Mark Wood can stay fit? It is two very big ifs, but, like the top 3, there is just a hint that the answers may be coming.

Of course, this was a dead rubber. The West Indies were without their inspirational captain (and his stand-in was no better on over-rate) and their out cricket was flat and they lost one of their attack, injured. It is easy to write this off as a meaningless win. However, England’s rise to Ashes success in 2005 started with a “meaningless win” in a dead rubber in the 2002/03 Ashes. If the lessons have been learnt. If the right conclusions are drawn, momentum can grow quickly. The Australians have their problems too and are not the supermen of yesteryear… at least, not at the moment. It may look oh so different come September, but then, it might not. Back in 1989 Australia came to England having, in general, had much the worst of their matches against England through the ‘80s. The feeling was that England, most likely, would win the series and hold on to the Ashes. It ended 4-0 to Australia, with only the weather stopping them from winning the two, drawn Tests and England used 26 players over the six matches including, famously, their “eighteenth choice fast bowler” in the midst of a massive, late-series injury crisis.

 

West Indies v England, 3rd Test, Preview: Crocked England Ring the Changes

 

West Indies v England

3^rd Test, Preview: Crocked England Ring the Changes

February 8^th 2019

 

England are 2-0, facing a blackwash and in the midst of an injury crisis. Yes, it’s good to be back to normal on away tours. This business of winning was getting a bit boring.

Word is that, apart from Chris Woakes, Ben Foakes is also out of consideration for the 3^rd Test, while Ben Stokes is doubtful. As predicted, Keaton Jennings will make a remarkable return to the Test side, presumably allowing Joe Denly to drop down to his more accustomed #3 and Jonny Bairstow to bat at #5 and take the gloves. Sam Curran will make way for Mark Wood, unless Ben Stokes is unfit, in which case he will retain his place. Curran for Stokes is a little like the time in the 1980s when Derek Pringle had to fill in for Ian Botham: decent enough player, did his job in the side, but hardly a change to make the opposition quake with fear.

So, England will re-jig their top three… again, will re-jig the middle order… again and will re-jig the bowlers… again.

Thirty wickets in twelve Tests at an average of 41.7 and a strike rate of 76 are not figures to fill you with belief that Mark Wood will knock over the opposition. However, his career has been so disjointed by injuries that it is not easy to judge him fairly. What England want is someone capable of the faster ball that Shannon Gabriel has used to good effect, taking as many wickets at the other end as he has taken himself. On tricky surfaces, the extra few miles per hour on the ball make a huge difference and add uncertainty to the minds of the batsmen: England did not have anyone fast enough to make life difficult for the batsmen at Antigua and that is one reason why the West Indian batsmen could get away with playing and missing so much.

The West Indies are without Jason Holder. When any other captain gets suspended for over-rate violations – and, to get a suspension you have to be a serial offender – the cricketing world applauds and says “that will teach him”. Such though is the mood of self-flagellation in English cricket and the buoyancy in the West Indians that this sanction is being treated as “controversial”, “unjust” and “a mockery”. Yes, fair play. Even when your opponent breaks the rules, he should not be punished. Slow over rates cheat the fans and allow bowlers to stay on for longer spells. No one is demanding eighteen overs per hour, even if that over rate was standard up until relatively recently in cricket history (sides were expected to maintain eighteen and a half overs per hour in the County Championship until the 1980s), but twelve overs per hour is ludicrous. Even when the West Indians fielded a battery of quick bowlers who would run in almost from the boundary, it was unacceptable, with just one quick and three medium-pacers there is no justification for such a slow over-rate.

The bad news for England is that if their injury problems and form issues were not serious enough, to have a West Indian side nursing a new sense of injustice and out to settle a score is going to make the job of halting the Caribbean juggernaut even harder.

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.

3rd Test, Squad Announcement: And the Winner is…!

 

3^rd Test, Squad Announcement: And the Winner is…!

July 22^nd 2017

We have had a couple of days to digest the bomb(s) that the selectors have dropped.

First and most important, they were spared the embarrassment of having to admit to error and drop Gary Balance thanks to his broken finger. Ballance is conveniently unavailable for the 3^rd Test and that debate can wait.

In his place plays Tom Westley. This is an interesting call and one of the less expected names in the sense that there were plenty of calls in the press for him to be called up, but you rather thought that he might be pipped at the post and get a call from the selectors beginning “awwwwwfuly bad luck Tom. You were so close.”

If you just look at his career average, you see under 38 – a useful player, definitely a county stalwart, but nothing exceptional. He has spent several seasons in the more relaxed climes of Division 2 cricket, where pitches are often not so good and attacks are friendlier after some lively new ball overs. Last season though, his runs at 53 were a large part of the reason why Essex were promoted and he is now averaging 53 half way though his first Division 1 season: last season was not a flash in the pan.

What is more, when newly promoted Essex started fast, largely due to the quantity of runs from Alistair Cook and Tom Westley, people nodded wisely and thought that it would not last. We are now more than half way through the season and Essex are sitting pretty at the top with a healthy lead and five wins from eight matches. Yes, they could suffer a late meltdown but they have already enough points in the bank to ensure that those who bet on them to go straight back down can throw away their betting slips and, after several seasons where the County Championship title has gone down to the last round and even the last day, or last session of the season, there is every chance that this season the title will be wrapped up with at least one round to spare. Westley’s recognition is recognition that Essex have hit a winning formula and that their players deserve recognition too.

However, Tom Westley’s elevation was the result of a delicate and complex ballet.

Question 1: Do we persist with Keaton Jennings?

This should not even have been a question given that he has only played 4 Tests and his first 3 were marked with a century, a fifty and a battling 33 in the second innings of the 1^st Test when conditions were at their most difficult, which helped set up the win.

Dropping him so quickly was not an option. However there was a permutation that would have seen Mark Stoneman selected as an opener and Jennings dropping to #3. This was in line with the original Plan A of the selectors to square the Cook-Hameed-Jennings triangle by playing Jennings at #3 and let Hameed open. Social media are still full of calls for Hameed to open, but his recent run of 0, 9, 10, 18, 38*, 0, 2, 17 & 23 really does not broke argument. He has hardly scored a run since leaving India as injury, illness and expectation have taken their toll. Jennings is hardly in sparkling recent form, but a fifty in each innings for the Lions sealed his spot. Hameed managed just 0 & 2 against South Africa A.

It seems though that the selectors stated firmly that Jennings would open. That, apparently, ruled out Stoneman, who was not considered a suitable option for #3. Westley thus was considered the best fit as a specialist #3. This allows Jennings to find his feet against what is proving to be an extremely testing new ball attack (ask Alistair Cook, whose scores of 3, 69, 3 & 42) are some way short of the form that he has shown for his county: 3x100, 2x50 and no score lower than 31 in his last eight matches). It also allows Joe Root to stay at his preferred  #4 position.

So, Part 1 of the England conundrum has been resolved with

       1.     Cook

2.     Jennings

3.     Westley

4.     Root

Part 2 involves the bowling.

Moeen Ali has bowled 59 overs and taken 14 wickets.

Dawson, Broad, Stokes and Wood have bowled a total of 213 overs and taken 15 wickets.

Wood’s only wicket of the series came when he bowled a token over before Tea on the final day of the 1^st Test and JP Duminy decided to end his Test career with a rash shot.

While the series bowling averages are topped by Moeen Ali and Jimmy Anderson, the next five slots are all held by South African bowlers. The England support bowling has been very disappointing. Stuart Broad has bowled well and has been a fine foil for Jimmy Anderson, but with limited luck. Stokes, Dawson and Wood though, all too often, have released pressure.

Having six bowlers does give the captain many options. It also means that bowlers have relatively light loads through what is a very compressed series. With several bowlers who are carrying long-term injuries, or who are approaching the end of their careers, or both, not over-bowling them is a major concern. In theory, Joe Root can call on a bowler of high pace (Wood), two of the best seamers in world cricket (Anderson and Broad), an X-Factor bowler (Stokes), a decent off-spinner (Moeen) and a Slow Left-Armer (Dawson). It should be an attack that can prosper in any situation.

That though, is only a theory. The reality is that something is holding Mark Wood back. In the ODIs, the knowledge that he would bowl a maximum of ten overs in two or three spells allowed him to release his aggression. In the Tests, the thought that he may need to bowl 20 or even 25 overs in a day (so far he has been nowhere near that), have caused him to hold back. He is bowling neither fast, nor aggressively. He is not giving control. His only wicket was due to a piece of rank bad batting. While not bowling badly, he is not achieving what his team needs, which is to exploit breakthroughs with incisive bursts of aggression.

Wood’s place is under threat for other reasons. He is carrying a heel injury and although passed fit, it may be that he is not risked. Get him through the series. Get him ready for Australia. One option is to play Toby Roland-Jones at The Oval and at least see what he can do. Is he a plausible option for Australia if others are unavailable? Most likely Woakes (probably unavailable until the West Indies series) and Ball would be picked ahead of him, but Roland-Jones is probably only an injury or two away from going to Australia. With the lack of any kind of meaningful practice in modern tours of Australia, the best time to find out about him before the Ashes start will be in a Test. The West Indies series will be needed to re-commission Ball and Woakes and perhaps as a confidence builder for Wood. If England are serious about Toby Roland-Jones, they have to bite the bullet and play him.

The impression is that TRJ or Toblerone – as he is known – has had a discrete season. He is though the leading wicket-taker for Middlesex in the Championship by a clear margin and in the top dozen Division 1 wicket-takers, although his average of 35.6 is poorer than any of the top fifteen wicket-takers apart from Neil Wagner. He has also laboured with what BBC Radio London’s Kevin Hand has called “Five Day pitches”, on which bowling out sides once, let alone twice, has been a real battle. This though may be an advantage in Tests as he has learnt the skills to winkle out batsmen on good pitches.

A look at the leading wicket-takers in Division 1 does reveal some reason for hope. Two South Africans in exile: Harmer and Abbott lead the way with 44 and 40 wickets respectively. Behind them, Ben Coad on 39 has surely earnt a ticket to Australia. Seventh on the list, with 24 wickets, is a name who probably no one would have guessed: Somerset’s Jack Leach, apparently getting his mojo back. Hovering around the top 20 are Stephen Parry of Lancashire, Liam Dawson, Dom Bess (17 wickets at 19.5 in just three matches) and Ollie Rayner. Leach and Bess will surely go on tour with the Lions and it is not impossible that one or other may be in the party to Australia. Yes, there are some spin options. Maybe no one in the Shane Warne class, but then, who is?

Despite Liam Dawson’s success this season for Hampshire, his place is under real threat. England picked him, not as the best spinner, but as an able batsman who can bowl tight overs and relieve the pressure on Moeen Ali. Since his battling 66* in the 1^st innings at Channai his scores have been: 0, 0, 0, 13 & 5* and his bowling: 2-129, 2-67, 2-34, 0-26 & 1-42. Looking at the cold numbers and an economy that has only been below 3.7 in his last four innings as South Africa collapsed at Lord’s, you would have to say that he is not supplying what England need. It is hard to avoid the feeling that he is batting at least one place too high in the order and that England would be better served by having a specialist batsman in his place and pushing Bairstow, Stokes and Moeen down a place.

Although the name of Dawid Malan had been mentioned – after all, he has made his T20 debut and averages over 40 this season, as well as being an under-rated leg-spinner – his naming was unexpected and definitely not universally approved. A common complaint is that England are addressing an all-too-real batting issue by picking a T20 specialist. Yes, Malan made his name with a remarkable T20 century in 2009 and made his debut for England in T20, but he has been a Lions regular for several seasons without ever quite making it into the Test team. He has also got a solid record in what has frequently over recent seasons been a dysfunctional Middlesex middle order.

If I had to take a bet, I would say that the selectors will baulk from three changes and three new caps, but two is a very good bet. Right now, I would bet good money on one of Dawson and Wood missing out, with Malan for Dawson the most likely swap. The only reason why it may not happen is that if The Oval pitch looks like being a big turner, as it has at times in the past, the selectors may think that Dawson is necessary. If, however, the weather is likely to be grey and cool, encouraging seam more than spin, Malan will slot in at #5.