Ashes 2017/18: 4th and 5th ODIs, A Strange End to a Strange ODI Series

 

Ashes 2017/18: 4^th and 5^th ODIs

A Strange End to a Strange ODI Series

January 28^th 2017

The last two ODIs have featured a side that has relaxed and gone off the boil, against another that has lost all confidence that it can win, however favourable the position. The result has been first a game in which Australia staggered drunkenly over the line despite having had England 8-5 after 6.2 overs – a position from which there should have been no return – and then a match in which Australia seemed to be cruising to an inadequate target, needing 71 from 97 balls, with 6 wickets in hand and yet somehow contrived to lose.

Australia can point to the fact that it had a winning position in four of the five games and that the final margin of 4-1 does not reflect the true distance between the sides. It does reflect though their problems: they cannot pace a chase, they struggle to set adequate targets and cannot finish-off games: today’s slow, painful innings by Tim Paine was symbolic of how Australia could not close out a position. Their ODI cricket seems anchored in the past and their confidence close to zero. Australia show all the problems that England did in the last World Cup in the sense of thinking that 260-270 is a perfectly adequate total to set, trying to milk singles from the middle overs and thinking that if Plan A does not work, they should try Plan A… until it does finally work in a game.

England, on the other hand, just lack the ruthlessness that separates the good from the very good. Yes, they won today’s match and pushed Australia to the limit in the fourth match, but against a better side they would have lost the series.

Ultimately the hero today was Tom Curran, who also gave a favourable impression in the Tests in his limited opportunities, but a big hand has to go to Jake Ball for getting up off the floor after collapsing and avoiding the need for Joe Root to have to bowl two of the last four overs with only a small number of runs to protect. Even though Ball took some stick from a couple of balls, he avoided disaster and Tom Curran did the rest, cleaning up Zampa and Paine in successive overs.

The biggest single problem that Australia had all through the series came from the unlikeliest of sources. Australia simply had the holy terrors in the middle overs every time that Adil Rashid and Moeen Ali bowled. Although Moeen’s batting struggles have continued, he has looked a different man with the ball and has squeezed the run-scoring, allowing Adil Rashid to attack at the other end. Adil Rashid has been more expensive than anyone other than Liam Plunkett, but has been the highest wicket-taker in the series and the only bowler on either side to bowl all fifty overs. Moeen has taken fewer wickets, but has produced pressure by drying-up the runs. Between them they have taken fifteen wickets and posed problems that the Australian middle order simply could not solve. So many of Adil Rashid’s wickets have come from batsmen attacking him, thinking foolishly that buffet was served, not realising that this is his main threat: producing rushes of blood and injudicious swipes. While Adil Rashid was expensive on paper, his appearance so often led to precious wickets falling that halted any momentum that the runs off him had created.

This is one of the features of the new England: Eoin Morgan is happy to see Adil Rashid taking 3-55, or even 3-60 from 10 overs, when previous captains would have preferred to see 0-45. As happened in the Tests last winter, until some poor captaincy ended up draining their confidence, Moeen and Adil Rashid bowl well together and complement each other. Eoin Morgan has the happy knack of getting the best from them in ODIs, which makes one wonder if they should be given another chance to bowl together in Tests sooner rather than later.

For England, the pieces that did not quite work in the Tests came right here. Chris Woakes scored plenty of runs in limited opportunities and also took wickets. Joe Root’s 226 runs more than trumped Steve Smith’s 102 – Smith struggled against Adil Rashid and seemed to lose confidence progressively, scoring increasingly slowly. It is possible that the effort of carrying his side’s batting through the Test series has just drained Steve Smith so totally that he simply needs a rest, while Joe Root has been refreshed by being able to hand over the captaincy and the spotlight to someone else. Jason Roy produced two fine innings and someone always produced critical runs: Roy in one innings, Buttler in another, Root in another and Woakes every time him came out to bat. Woakes, Roy and Buttler all scored at comfortably in excess of a run-a-ball and worked around Joe Root’s efforts to anchor innings. Apart from the success of Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid as spin-twins, the addition of some real pace and threat from Liam Plunkett and Mark Wood made a real difference, along with the revival of Chris Woakes as a threat with the ball.

In contrast, Australia chopped and changed their side – they used 16 players to England’s 14 – but only Marcus Stoinis offered enough runs, fast enough to be a real threat, even if his bowling was more of a liability to his side than an advantage. Aaron Finch was massive in the three games that he played: 2x100 and 1x50, but had too little support and seemed to slow, not accelerate, as his innings progressed.

England cannot rest on their laurels, but this series is a massive change from the equivalent one in 2013/14 that they lost 4-1. Australia though have some serious thinking to do with the World Cup coming closer. It is also further evidence that Australia’s superiority in the Tests had more to do with the fortune to be able to bowl their first-choice attack all through the series (with one exception) than it did with their strength in depth. While Australia’s best XI is formidably strong, the next layer of players underneath are not in the same class and Australia are not the same force away from their hostile home conditions.

 

Ps: Odd fact from the ODI series – in every match, Australia started as strong favourites with the bookmakers. There was an opportunity there for someone to make money. Or did the bookies know something that we did not?

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: 1st and 2nd ODIs - Cricket Through The Looking Glass

 

Ashes 2017/18: 1^st and 2^nd ODIs

Cricket Through The Looking Glass

January 19^th 2017

It has been an odd week.

The Crown Prosecution Service decides to prosecute Ben Stokes for Affray. This is a serious offence that can be tried in a Magistrates Court (3 magistrates instead of a jury) with a maximum sentence of six months in prison, or it can be sent for trial to a Crown Court for trial by jury with a sentence of up to three years. Stokes’s case has been sent to Bristol Magistrates Court so, with the possibility that the case might take a year or more to be heard, the ECB decided to re-commission Stokes when many fans and pundits thought that maybe he would not play again for England.

Significantly, Stokes will not go to Australia for the end of the ODI series and the T20s that follow; he will go for the follow-up tour of New Zealand where the press and the public are less hostile and the media tend to be far thinner on the ground anyway.

It is fair to say that not everyone favoured the decision and the ECB committee was deeply split. However, restraint of trade and maintaining a presumption of innocence were powerful arguments. Stokes has already been punished severely by missing a significant part of the ODI series against West Indies and the whole tour of Australia and stopping him playing while maintaining the image that he has not been convicted without trial, could be hard to justify in the courts.

Could it possibly be coincidence that the day after Ben Stokes’s date of return – February 20^th – was announced, it was announced that this same date he would be required to present himself in court in Bristol?

It is possible that Stokes could manage to negotiate a change in date. He is going to contest the charge. It is also quite possible that the magistrates will refuse to accommodate him, media personality or not. It is also possible that he may enter the court on foot and leave it in a prison van, thus halting his return to the England side at Her Majesty’s Pleasure.

Watch this space. This one may run and run.

So, have England been further distracted? After all, in 2013/14 they lost all five Tests, lost the ODIs 4-1 and the T20s 3-0. Two of the ODIs were very, very close, but, of thirteen international matches on the tour, England won but one. They then went to the Caribbean for a T20 series… and lost that too. In other words, losing became a habit and the Australians were in no mood to let up even when the Ashes were won. It was thus not surprising that the book-makers had Australia firm favourites for the first two ODIs.

Yes, we expected a one-sided ODI series. And boy have we got it. A whitewash looks a pretty good bet. The novelty is that it is England who look to have a pretty good chance of imposing it. Yes, this is a mirror image of the Test series. Both games have looked closer on paper than they were on the pitch. England chased a ground record 305 to win at Melbourne and got them with some comfort. And, at Brisbane, despite a late wobble, a wholly inadequate 270-9 by Australia was chased down with more than five overs to spare. Australia look to need to set 330-340 to test England and are getting nowhere near that.

Even the Australian successes are a mark of their failure. Aaron Finch has scored 107 and 106 and both matches have been lost. Both innings though have been at under a run-a-ball: he just has not been able to accelerate and get away from England. In fact, today, until a late thrash from Carey, no one had come close to scoring at a run-a-ball and even Carey’s innings was 27 from 24. To have set an adequate target, someone had to score at 150 and get the scoreboard accelerating but, in a batting-heavy line-up, no one could. In the first game, Australia were 196-3 with 15 overs to go: a platform for 330+? Australia simply do not have that kind of vision. Only Stoinis, with 60 from 40 balls, threatened to play the sort of match-changing innings that we have associated with Australia and even he could not see it through. The last three overs produced 19 runs and three wickets. Today, seeing the way the wind was blowing, the CricInfo commentator almost begged for 50 from the last 4 overs to make a game of it: he got 20. Today, Bairstow, Hales, Buttler and Woakes all made significant contributions and all scored faster than Finch. It did not matter than Root’s innings was relatively slow: he anchored as runs came in a flood at the other end.

Part of the difference is the taming, at least thus far of Sir Donald Smith. Caught behind off Adil Rashid in the first game and LBW to Root today, he has made two starts, but not been allowed to get away either time. An important part though has been England’s spin pairing. Adil Rashid has been expensive but taken match-changing wickets. Eoin Morgan has been prepared to see him go for some runs in return for vital breakthroughs and so far his wickets have been Smith, Mitch Marsh (twice) and Stoinis. Today, a handy 209-3 with 10 overs to go, became 216-6 as Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid turned the match on its head. And there hangs a tail: Moeen Ali, 17-0-70-2 – of the bowlers who have bowled at least ten overs in the two games, comfortably the most economical on either side, with his nearest challenger Joe Root, who has only bowled today.

Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid are forming a middle over stranglehold with the ball. And so effective has Adil Rashid been that he was even entrusted with the ball in the final overs in the first game. Moeen looks a totally different player to the sad, lonely figure of the Tests. Add to it that the wicket-taking menace of Mitch Starc is being countered by the menace of Liam Plunkett and suddenly it looks like a different pair of sides. Starc has more wickets at a better average and strike rate, but Plunkett has better economy.

Steve Smith has admitted that Australia are well off the pace and lacking answers and will not have felt in any way relieved by Eoin Morgan stating that England have been well short of their best. And, truth be told, they have not batted anywhere near as well as they can, mainly due to their minimal preparation. With the third game back-to-back with the second, England should start to get into their stride. If they do, you would not bet against 5-0. As it is, Australia have to win the third match to keep the series alive. And you do not know how good it is to say that.

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.

England v India: ODIs - Defeat Does Not Remove The Positives

 

England v India: ODIs

Defeat Does Not Remove The Positives

January 18^th 2017

To look at the grumbling from fans you would think that the England set-up is in total meltdown. In the 1^st ODI India were set 351 to win and made them with some comfort: the first time that England has made over 331 and lost.

You can paraphrase it by saying in a Bob Dylan-esque way “the times they is a-changing”. Although it was a good effort to make 350 after a mid-innings squelch and the pundits claimed that the score was a bit above par, it denies the change in the nature of the game in recent years. 350, on a small ground with a flat pitch was no better than a par score these days. There was wholesale condemnation of England’s bowling effort, but I don't think that India would have defended a total either had they batted first.

You need to do no more than to look at the recent Tests to see just how much the game is changing: Bangladesh scored 595-8d in their first innings and LOST; Australia set Pakistan 486 to win a Test and just scraped home when it appeared that Pakistan were almost there. Fifteen times a side has scored 500+ in the first innings of a Test and lost and eight of those occasions have been in the last 14 years. Sooner or later that record chase in the fourth innings of a Test is going to be shattered and a side will be set 450, or even 500 and will win.

Getting back to the ODIs, I suspect that we will see both sides struggling to defend 330+ during the series. Things are just so ridiculously weighted now against the bowlers. It may well be that unless India decide to resort to a vicious turner that we will see that a side setting 380 will have real problems to defend that total. The old adage of winning 50% of ODIs with a score of 260 is now so hopelessly outdated as to be a museum piece: sides may still win matches setting 240 or 250, but it will be thanks to a difficult pitch.

Crowds now expect run-fests against totally neutered bowlers. 250 in a T20 has been made no less than six times: it is only a matter of time before we see a side make 300 in a T20. 400 in a 50-over match has happened so many times that it is now barely newsworthy and 500 is going to happen soon, after all, the record is Surrey’s 496-4 in 2007. If there are not sixes galore, the fans think that they have been cheated.

Sadly, these people do not know what they are missing. Some of the greatest, tensest  ODIs of all-time have been low-scoring affairs on very difficult pitches. One game that I particularly recall was the last group match in the 1979 World Cup (yes, cricket was played that long ago). England scored 165-9 from 60 overs, powered by Graeme Gooch’s 33 from 90 balls (yes, you read that right), eventually recovering from 118-8. In reply, Pakistan sank to 34-6 before Asif Iqbal made the only 50 of the match and the Pakistan tail all chipped-in. At 145-8 it seemed that Pakistan would snatch an amazing comeback win, with England’s seamers bowled out and Phil Edmonds surplus to requirements for most of the game. A desperate Mike Brearley turned to his secret weapon – Geoff Boycott (who had been warned that he might need to bowl a few overs in the tournament) – who then proceeded to come on and mop-up the tail. 5-0-14-2 and one of the greatest, tensest ODIs in history was done. There is nothing better than a low-scoring game on a difficult pitch where every single at the death is a story and batsmen have to out-think bowlers rather than simply bully them. We are in danger of losing the gem that is a low-scoring thriller. Now, 165-9 would be considered no more than a decent score in a T20, let alone a 60-over match.

Failing to defend 350 in an ODI is not so unexpected these days. It does not indicate an ODI side in crisis, as some catastrophists would like to make out. England lost because they did not make enough runs after a mid-innings wobble and, unlike India, they did not have a set batsman in at the death. Eoin Morgan felt that his side should have  made 380 and he was right.

Fans though will see those four consecutive defeats in the Tests and a defeat in one of the warm-ups, followed up by an ODI defeat and see a major crisis at all levels of the game. It is the nature of England fans to be natural pessimists and to talk down their side even when they are winning (“yes, but we are only winning against poor opposition”). There is though a big difference between the current ODI side – brilliant, but still a little erratic, barely 18 months into its new regime – and the Test side. The ODI side will occasionally have a brain-fade and lose a game, but I can see them chasing-down 380 if India are good enough to set it. The Test side is going through a massive crisis of confidence that may not be unrelated to the vicissitudes of its captain.

After the Australian disaster, England had the year from hell with six consecutive series that they were favourites to lose (but ended up losing just one of them): sometimes it just takes one player, or one tweak to change things around. After the 5-0 in Australia a couple of players went, a couple came in and the side looked so much better for it.

If you look at the last year, there is actually quite a lot of good news around the Test side. Hameed and Jennings look like the real deal. Chris Woakes has come on by leaps and bounds and is suggesting that an Anderson-less future (does anyone really think that he will go to Australia?) may not be as dark as predicted. Moeen Ali has started to score bags of runs and has been bowling much better (until Cook messed with his mind in India), Stokes has developed into a fine all-rounder, Jonny Bairstow has broken though. Jos Buttler may just be getting the hang of Tests, etc. The problem is that we are not getting eleven players all performing at once. Bangladesh and India both saw some wonderful individual efforts, but nothing that was the equivalent of the "eight-man shove" in rugby, with everyone pushing together.

It could be that all the side needs is a refreshed captain who has had a six-month break from the pressures of captaincy and a few pep-talks from his in-house psychologist: wife Alice. Or, it could be that Alistair Cook will go and that fortunes will only change with a new captain.

The suspicion is that the longer that this one plays out, the less likely it is that Alistair Cook will resign. It suits the ECB more for Joe Root to be kept away from the job until 2018 when they feel that he will be more prepared for the pressures: it is a high-risk strategy that could blow up their faces should South Africa administer a severe defeat this summer, even if the shock news that AB de Villiers will not tour England must have evened things up a little. As former opening partners, there is much mutual respect between Cook and Andrew Strauss and it is quite certain that Strauss will not sack Cook unless put in a wholly unsustainable position. It is also well-known that Cook is stubborn, does not resign, that his inclination is usually to hang on and try and turn things around (particularly after a chat with Alice), as was shown by his unwillingness to relinquish the ODI captaincy even long after his position had become untenable.

Right now the action moves to Cuttack. If England win the Toss and chase, do not put it past them to give India a surprise or two. The question is whether or not to tweak the side. Recently though, management has tended to accept that the odd game will be lost and to show faith. Faith, Hope and Charity. If England show faith in their XI from Pune they will hope that India show some charity. Strangely, India’s concerns mirror England’s: their top-order failed at Pune and their leading spinner was ineffective and costly. India got away with it in Pune thanks to a couple of special innings, but they may not get away with such charity twice.

England v Bangladesh: ODI Defeat Provides a Warning

 

England v Bangladesh

ODI Defeat Provides a Warning

October 10^th  2016

 Having scrapped and scraped to a remarkable win in the 1^st ODI on Friday, defeat in the 2^nd ODI gives due warning of England’s task. No longer can a side appear in Chittagong or Dhaka with a 2^nd XI and expect to win without breaking sweat.

In the last two years Bangladesh have only played eight home Tests – security concerns, the fact that Bangladesh tours are not marketable and a general indifference to touring the country have assured that – but those eight Tests have come over four series against Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan and South Africa. Just one of those series has been lost. The overall balance is W3 L1 D4 respectable, even if we take into account that the three wins were the Tests against Zimbabwe and the two South Africa Tests were largely washed-out, although with Bangladesh in a good position to push for the win in the 1^st Test. Bangladesh are no longer easy pickings to improve averages and recover lost form. The solitary defeat was against Pakistan, albeit a very heavy one.

In ODIs Bangladesh’s form has been even better. Twenty-two home ODIs over the last two years have brought a balance of W18 L4. Series won against Zimbabwe (two whitewashes), Pakistan (whitewash), India (2-1), South Africa (2-1), Afghanistan (2-1) and now England (1-1, with one to play).

From being treated as somewhat of a joke in cricket circles, Bangladesh are now beginning to become formidable opponents at home. That formidable that while they do not win many matches yet, they can now reasonably aspire to draw a large fraction of home Tests, which is the essential preliminary to starting to win.

Winning is still the major issue. Bangladesh’s overall Test record is P93, W7, L71, D15, with five of the seven wins against Zimbabwe and the other two against what was not much more than a West Indian 3^rd XI in 2009. However, since the start of 2013, Bangladesh’s home record is definitely respectable in so far as avoiding defeat is concerned:

	Played	Won	Lost	Drawn	% Defeats
Overall	51	4	35	12	69%
Before 2013	39	1	33	5	85%
Since 2013	12	3	2	7	17%

Those twelve Tests cover the series previously mentioned, plus Tests against New Zealand and Sri Lanka. It all amounts to a warning that England’s 100% record against Bangladesh – played 8, won 8 – will be under serious threat and, were the worst to happen and the 1st Test be lost, chances are that the series would be lost too. In those eight Tests over four series since 2003, the narrowest margin of victory has been by 7 wickets in the very first match.

It also suggests that it is time to re-consider the policy of resting players for tours of Bangladesh. There was a time when England could play simultaneous series in the Caribbean and New Zealand, win both at a canter and still leave a number of their best players at home: those days though are now long gone. If you do not pick your best XI you are not going to expect to win: you may not win even if you do take all your best players.

In the past, England have tried players such as Martin Saggers, Rikki Clarke and Ajmal Shahzad (6 Tests between them, 4 of them against Bangladesh) in these series. In part it has been to rest players, in part to blood plausible reserves. As Bangladesh get stronger, using them to test reserves gets to be increasingly productive in that it becomes a real test of a player’s capacity to perform at this level. It is also a real dress rehearsal for the tour of India that follows. In that sense, taking players like Gareth Batty who seem unlikely to be part of future plans is less re-assuring than taking someone like Leach or Rayner.

The reasoning seems to be that, with very little cricket outside the internationals, England want to have a player like Batty on hand who could play at a moment’s notice if someone gets injured on the morning of a game. However, they are also carrying Sam Billings and Liam Dawson in the ODI squad when both seem increasingly unlikely to play at all on the tour. While the former has a good List A record, the latter has had a modest season, but has an even more modest First Class and List A record. England believe that Liam Dawson is their best bet for the future and that simply being around the squad will help his development, but he is running out of time to make a breakthrough as the spin cupboard is no longer so bare as it seemed, with the emergence of Leach at Somerset and Mason Crane at Hampshire, both of whom have taken advantage of the new Toss rule producing more spin-friendly surfaces. It is still too early for Crane and Leach has to avoid “second season syndrome”, but it is hard to avoid wondering if they are the future now and not Dawson.

What is alarming in this ODI series and, most likely in the Tests that follow, is the lack of options for England. It is not their fault that they have lost Mark Wood, Jimmy Anderson and Liam Plunkett from the squads due to injury and Alex Hales and Eoin Morgan withdrawing for security reasons but, with Joe Root rested too, it is hard to see what changes England can make.

In both matches the top-order batting has failed and the bowling has, at times, struggled to take wickets. James Vince has lost his Test place, but has now been promoted to open with Jason Roy and continues to struggle to convert starts into scores. David Willey was good with the new ball in the 2^nd ODI, but has yet to take a wicket in the two ODIs and was expensive in the warm-up. Moeen Ali was better with the ball in the 2^nd ODI, but was expensive in the 1^st and has just 10 runs and figures of 0-101 in the two matches. In contrast, despite some erratic bowling and taking some punishment, Adil Rashid has managed combined figures of 6-102 and his calm knock of 33* took England close to inducing the sort of panic in the Bangladesh side that lost them the 1^st ODI when it seemed easier to win.

One would hope that Steve Finn will get a game, possibly replacing Willey: it is great to have a #10 with multiple First Class centuries but, if like yesterday, you are depending on him to score runs, it is because the rest of the batting has failed anyway. The bowling attack has had to work hard in tough conditions and some fresh legs will be welcome. The alternative is to promote the exhausted Jake Ball to taking the new ball and to play another spinner (Dawson? Who would be playing only his second ODI, after some rough treatment in his first [2-70]). It would be a risky strategy if Moeen and Adil Rashid are leaking runs. It would also put an even larger load on Jake Ball. What about James Vince? Do England persist with him, or do they go to Plan B and promote Moeen Ali to open [he has already done it in Asia with some success]? Presumably, Sam Billings would come in for Vince.

England took a pragmatic approach for the 2^nd ODI and repeated the same side that had somehow engineered a Houdini-like win in the 1^st but, the problems that were so evident in the first match are still there.

·         Wicket taking

Of the 16 wickets taken by England in the two ODIs, 13 have been taken by Jake Ball and Adil Rashid. In the first ODI Bangladesh were scoring at around 6-an-over in some comfort for the first 25 overs. In the second, from 169-7 and scoring at barely 4-an-over, they were allowed to push a total that should have been only around 200 up to a much more challenging 238.

The momentum, so much with England until then, moved straight back and when a couple of early wickets fell, Bangladesh were unstoppable.

·         The top order. 63-3 in the 13^th over in the 1^st ODI. 26-4 in the 10^th over in the 2^nd ODI.

James Vince is struggling in his role as stand-in for Alex Hales. His place was sealed with a decent 48 in the warm-up (although, again, unable to pass 50), he has followed it with 16 and 5 in a show of decreasing returns. Jason Roy, who has been so devastating in partnership with Alex Hales over the last year, does not look the same player with Vince at the other end. Might the attacking instincts of Moeen Ali not be a better foil? When the two openers fall cheaply, it puts great pressure on the middle order, especially in an ODI when overs are running out and you have to both accelerate and conserve wickets. So far, Jos Buttler has come off both times, but you cannot rely on him and Ben Stokes to rescue the innings in every game.

·         The spinners are being attacked. This can be both good and bad. In the 1^st ODI Adil Rashid and Moeen Ali went for 27 and 26 respectively from their first 4 overs. Adil Rashid took revenge by taking wickets when the batsmen continued to attack, but it is not ideal to see the scoring accelerate suddenly as soon as the spinners come on, even if they can peg it back later, as it means losing any control that the opening attack has given. Particularly in low-scoring matches, the change of momentum can be critical.

With a Test series coming that offers the real possibility of embarrassment ahead of the tour of India, winning this ODI series assumes a much greater importance. England need to take momentum to India. This means making the right calls now and having to be ruthless.

England v Pakistan, ODIs: Arise Sir Donald Hales

 

England v Pakistan

ODIs

Arise Sir Donald Hales

August 31^st  2016

A summer that threatened to end as a damp squib from England’s point of view, has re-ignited after guttering and fading. Three years ago England took a 3-1 Ashes lead against Australia: they lost the Final Test, the ODI series that followed, the five Tests in Australia, all but one of the ODIs, the series to Sri Lanka and went down in the series against India before finally reviving. A sad, dispirited defeat in the Final Test to a suddenly revived Pakistan, led by a suddenly revived Yasir Shah, raised at least the spectre of that scenario. Yasir Shah, who had spent two and a half Tests looking totally inoffensive and seeming the least of England’s worries, thundered back with 5-71 and made England look clueless again. A drawn series was a tribute to Pakistan’s capacity to come back from the abyss and England’s incapacity to close out series. On the balance of play, it was deserved, with each side totally dominating two Tests. As a spectacle though, it was dispiriting.

At the end of the Test series most fans looked at the England side and called time on James Vince’s career. A large majority felt that Gary Ballance had not justified his recall – to be fair, his county form did not justify it. And an increasing number of fans thought that the faith that the selectors had shown in Alex Hales had not been justified.

Poor Alex Hales. Equalled the England record with five consecutive 50s in the ODIs in South Africa after being written-off. Came back with three scores in the 80s and 90s in the Tests against Sri Lanka without making those last few runs that would have silenced the doubters. And has had three consecutive low scores in his last three ODIs. One feed-backer put it succinctly: “he’s shown that he is not good enough in any format”.

Cricket fans are a fickle lot. Their memories are short. Their gratitude is parsimonious. And a player is only as good as his last match. In T20 Hales was ranked as the #1 batsman in the world for a time and has top scores of 94, 99 and 116* - the first English T20 century. A relatively lean run in T20 (no 50 since 2014) has seen his contributions forgotten.

Three low scores in his last three ODIs have seen calls for him to be dropped in all formats. The suggestion is utterly bizarre. You do not become a poor player overnight and Alex Hales had, in his eight ODIs of the year up to the end of June, scored 520 runs in 8 innings with 4x50 and 2x100.

The nature of limited-overs cricket is that you will sometimes have failures and runs of low scores. And sometimes you will just have a brainstorm and do something really stupid. To come back though from being pilloried, from looking totally out of sorts and make a murderous 171 in 122 balls at very least shows character.

Hales’s sequence in ODIs in 2016 is something that even Sir Donald Bradman would be proud of:

57, 99, 65, 50, 112, 4, 133*, 0, 7, 14, 171

That is a small matter of 712 runs in 10 completed innings at a strike rate of 101.7. If that is not good enough, long live mediocrity!

When a player such as Joe Root has to act as sheet anchor because he is only scoring at a run-a-ball you know that great things are possible. We wanted to know what England could do batting first and now we know. The highest score in an ODI and some fairly eye-watering bowling figures. Only the fact that the last two overs unaccountably brought just 15 runs when the previous five had gone for 77 saved Pakistan from being the first side to concede 450 and 460 was definitely on with two overs to go.

The headline figure was the10-0-110-0 of Wahab Riaz, but Pakistan’s combined fifth bowler (Yasir Shah, Azhar Ali and Shoaib Malik) was actually more expensive (10-0-112-0).

Jos Buttler, who has looked short of match practice in the first two games, came good with the fastest 50 for England in ODIs and could have reached a century. What no one noticed is that Eoin Morgan was close to equalling the record: he was 42* from 20 balls and just two hits away from equalling Jos Buttler’s 22-ball 50. 33*, 68 & 57* is a big revival of fortunes for him.

If Pakistan had been sensible they could have at very least scared the target. Until the end of the 20^th over they had only once, very briefly at the start of the chase been behind and had been as much as 21 runs ahead of England at the same stage. The difference was that Pakistan panicked and, instead of accepting the odd over with only 3 or 4 runs scored, lost wickets regularly trying to force the scoring. At 106-3 after 15 overs they were 20 ahead of England at the same stage; within eight balls though that had become 108-5… game over!

England’s extraordinary ODI revival continues despite the ICC table saying that they are still only a mid-table team. The sceptics, who say that England have not yet beaten anyone of any quality must, at very least, be getting nervous. The suggestions that England are no different to the sad side of the last World Cup are getting harder and harder to justify. And, for Pakistan, the danger of having to qualify for the next World Cup is getting greater with every defeat.