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.

New Zealand v England: 1st Test, Day 4 - The Clock Ticking for Cook and England, While a Bomb Explodes Under Australia

 

New Zealand v England: 1^st Test, Day 4

The Clock Ticking for Cook and England, While a Bomb Explodes Under Australia

March 25^th 2018

Despite the fact that only thirteen balls were possible on Day 3, the match situation had not really changed: Day 4 was simply a matter of how long New Zealand would bat before declaring and how many they would set England to avoid an innings defeat.

When you have only scored 58 in your first innings, to bat again needing 369 to avoid an innings defeat or, what is the same, to survive 145 overs, is the toughest of assignments. Assuming that they score at 3-an-over on the 5^th Day, England will not knock off the deficit until just 19 overs remain to play. That would mean effectively leaving New Zealand no more than 4 or 5 overs maximum to chase, if they are to avoid defeat.

However, after the events across in Cape Town, to see a match in which the only issue has been the battle between bat and ball, has been a refreshing change. And when Trent Boult produced a brilliant last over, just as England’s hopes were rising of mounting an astonishing 5^th Day escape, no one in the press conference afterwards asked him about what grade of sandpaper he recommends using to rough-up the ball.

Many things can be said of England, but the total lack of any threat posed by the England bowling in this Test shows that ball-tampering is not one of them. The biggest disappointment of the Test is to see how England’s much-vaunted seamers, who look so good in England, have been made to look so second-rate by the New Zealand seamers, who have been so superior.

Unfortunately, even if England do somehow escape, their questions about the side have scarcely been answered. Alistair Cook fell cheaply again. Scores of 5 & 2 are not going to answer the doubts that he has the appetite to continue to score big Test runs on a regular basis. Since the start of the winter tour he has only reached 50 twice, one of them in the Townsville knockabout, the other, his monumental 244* in Melbourne. In 11 of 17 innings he has reached double figures, yet he has rarely made it count. Runs last summer and runs at Melbourne have left him with plenty of credit in the bank, but the suspicion is growing that his international career may not have much longer to run.

Similarly, his opening partner, Mark Stoneman has also left the big question unanswered. This is his 9^th Test. After being one of only two batsmen to get into double figures in England’s sad first innings, he scored a gritty 50 here – his fourth in Tests – only to give it away immediately. Nothing can hide the fact that, despite 4x50 in Tests, his highest score is only 56, his Test average, 27 and his First Class average is only 35. One suspects that only a century in the 2^nd Test will save his career and that if either Nick Gubbins or Sam Robson starts the season well, one or other of them will open with Alistair Cook against Pakistan at Lord’s on May 24^th. With several rounds of Championship matches before that 1^st Test, there will be opportunities for a batsman to put down a marker.

With Stoneman and Root batting comfortably, England seemed to be starting to wriggle free. This looked like the opportunity that Stoneman had been waiting for to make a century and to settle arguments about his place. He was confident enough to reach his 50 with a big six, before giving it away in the most Vince-like fashion. Come May, he may live to rue that shot.

With James Vince apparently defenestrated, the second burning question was about Joe Root at 3. Could he make a success of it? A double-failure for Root in this Test, combined with a fit Ben Stokes, could just have seen James Vince make a comeback in the 2^nd Test. Root also reached his fifty just before the Close and looked increasingly comfortable until Trent Boult ratcheted-up his pace and hostility in his last two overs before the Close. It did not take Mensa-like intelligence to work out that if England reached the Close two-down with Root and Malan batting well, their chances of survival start to grow considerably.

Root fell for a two-card trick and, possibly, his own need to show that he would not retreat under any circumstances. When Boult hit his bottom hand a wicked blow with the fourth ball of the last over of the day, Root decided to bat on after treatment when a more pragmatic approach would have been to retire hurt. Had he done that, the umpires would have signalled the Close. Root though is tough enough to check out of hospital and come out to bat even when evidently in no fit state to do so. Glove back on. Take guard again. Wicked bouncer. Gloved to the ‘keeper. 94-1 and beginning to get out of the mire had become 132-3 and a renewed struggle to take the game even as far as Tea tomorrow.

Ben Stokes will have one ball of the over to survive from a fired-up Boult in the morning before he and Malan have to set about blunting the attack.

Escape is unlikely. It will need yet another big innings from Malan, supported by runs from Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen Ali and Woakes to pull it off. But then, hope springs eternal and that is why hundreds of thousands of fans will tune-in after midnight… just in case.

What to make though of events in South Africa?

When the series started it looked brutally one-sided. In the 1^st Test Australia were all over South Africa and looked set to win comfortably, as they had done in previous series in South Africa. The change in the 2^nd Test though was as big as it was unexpected. What set off the change was a series of controversial incidents, including on and off-field confrontations between players and then between players and crowd. As the series heated-up, the crowd became more and more hostile and suddenly the Australian team discovered that getting it back is nothing like as enjoyable as handing it out without fear of reprisal and have increasingly lost focus.

Over the years the Australian team has based much of its success on the idea that visiting teams should be abused as much as possible on and off the field. This has included the request from Darren Lehmann for the public to target Stuart Broad and to make his life hell. While, of course, neither coach nor players can control barracking and abuse from the crowd, nor such tactics as setting off the fire alarm in the visiting team’s hotel during the night, or waking players with early morning telephone calls requesting radio interviews, nor have they done anything to condemn such behaviour. They regard it as part of the hospitality service to be offered to visiting teams, while crude, on-field, personal abuse is regarded as necessary to play the game in the right spirit.

When Darren Lehmann said that the abuse that his players were receiving had “crossed the line” there was a certain irony to his comments given what many players have received from Australian players and crowds without censure. As one broadcaster and writer on the English game pointed out, “the line” seemed to be positioned wherever was most convenient for Australian interests at any given time.

What this series – and others – has shown is that when a side refuses to be intimidated by Australian aggression and starts to give it back, the Australians lose focus and can disintegrate themselves.

However, do we really want world cricket to turn into a contest to see which set of players and its fans can be most yobbish? England can smirk, but they themselves have been involved in some distasteful incidents in the past.

There are many alarming aspects of the latest incident. All sides push the limits when they can. All sides resort, at least occasionally, to tactics that are dubious or are gamesmanship. And all sides do like their home support to give them a hand. And, of course, it is different when they are on the receiving end rather than handing it out. Not all sides though sit down and have an open, tour management discussion on how best to cheat when things are not working on the field. And yes, it was cheating when other sides have done it and it is cheating when Australia do it too.

There are still many aspects of what happened that are unclear. Surely neither Cameron Bancroft nor the captain seriously believed that no camera would pick up their attempts to rough-up the ball.  How believable is the story that it was some dirty sticky tape that had been used on the ball? Plenty of people watching the images saw something that looked much more like sandpaper, which would surely be far more effective anyway than some dirty sticky tape. Have the players actually come clean even now? How much did Darren Lehmann know and have to do with the plan?

As in the case of Watergate, the original crime was not such a bad one – the umpires did not even change the ball, considering that its state had not been altered – but the clumsy and incompetent cover-up made it infinitely worse. Bancroft’s comic attempts to hide the evidence and willingness to lie to the umpires when challenged, made things far worse than if he had come straight out and confessed. The intention was to damage the ball, even if the execution owed more to Monty Python than to Professor James Moriaty. And, of course, video has come to light of Cameron Bancroft apparently doing something underhand in the dressing room during the Ashes series, meaning that he is now marked with previous.

As a Gloucestershire supporter, I am very glad that Mr Bancroft will not be representing my county this summer and I know that other Gloucestershire fans feel the same. The fall-out is only starting. Bancroft has signed with Somerset, who have put out a statement to the effect that the decision on his contract is under review. Certainly, if Bancroft were to come to Somerset, his reputation would precede him and would be a major on and off-field distraction. Bancroft’s position in the Australian side is far from secure (despite runs in this Test, his average is hovering just over 30 after 8 Tests) – hence perhaps his willingness to play along – and it would be easy to drop him on the pretext of not scoring enough runs.

There are loud calls for Steve Smith to be stripped of the captaincy. Probity as captain of your national team is important: Mike Atherton got away with it, probably because he had a reputation as a decent person and captain who had made a bad mistake, but Keith Fletcher, Mike Gatting and Andrew Flintoff, quite rightly, did not and Ian Botham’s off-field antics ensured that he was never given a second chance. However, there are rumours that Cricket Australia are so horrified by the negative publicity generated by the whole affair and the fact that it was so pre-meditated, that they are considering life bans for Smith and Warner. As a legendary South African captain of the end of the 20^th Century found out: you cheat, you get caught, you face the consequences. Not too many Boards are willing to overlook such matters in the face of public opinion.

In the English language the word “cheat”, or an accusation of cheating, has huge emotional consequences and the word has been used a lot to describe what happened. In the infamous Shakoor Rana incident with Mike Gatting, the trigger was the umpire observing Gatting move a fielder behind square, where the batsman could not see the change, stopping play (no “dead ball” call though) and, telling Gatting that he was a cheat (the English version) or, in the umpire’s version, “you are making unfair play”. The word “cheat” inflaming passions to the point that Gatting snapped.

If Smith and Warner do go, it will be a massive blow to the Australian side, but would be a huge PR coup, showing that after all, Australians do want to win by fair means and not foul. It also remains to be seen if Darren Lehmann can ride out this storm: his position would become very difficult.

The remainder of the South African tour is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, anyway. How do you recover from an issue of this kind? And let us not forget that Australia tour England this summer for an ODI series and that Smith and Warner (and conceivably, Bancroft) would form part of that touring squad.

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: 4th Test Day 5, At Least It Will Not Be 5-0…

 

Ashes 2017/18: 4^th Test Day 5

At Least It Will Not Be 5-0…

December 30^th 2017

There was a thought that Australia could come out to score quick runs and put England under real pressure on the last day. It was never really likely but, after so many promising positions have disappeared, there was always that horrible feeling that Australia could make a sneaky declaration and suddenly have England 16-4 with a couple of hours to survive.

Starting the day 91 behind, with 98 overs to go – more likely 96 if there was a change of innings – the equation was simple for England. They had at very most 65 overs to take eight wickets; probably only 60. The key was always to take a couple of wickets in the first hour; if Australia got to Lunch with Warner and Smith still together the match would end in a draw.

As it was England took over 25 overs to make the breakthrough as Warner and Smith batted at the sort of pace more associated with the 1960s but, crucially, avoided giving the bowlers as sniff of a chance. A break for rain seemed to be the et tu brute.

Fortune has been cruel to England all tour and had one last joke to play. With the new ball and England’s last chance saloon barrelling into view, Joe Root put himself on. Warner took a wild slog and lobbed the ball straight to James Vince. Then Shaun Marsh edged the persevering Stuart Broad and Jonny Bairstow flew left and took a wonderful catch. With the new ball due soon after Lunch England were suddenly back in the game. Australia were effectively 8-4, the new ball was due in four overs and there were two sessions left.

As now even the most pessimistic Englishman, or one-eyed Australian could see any way that England could lose, but if Australia did not see off the new ball there was a real threat that they might. Here though, aided by a pitch that got so dead that even the ICC marked it as poor, Australia showed that that they can adapt their game. Just 47 runs came from 29 stone-walling overs in the afternoon session. If Faf du Plessis had been watching, he would have approved. It was a high-risk strategy because it meant that two quick wickets after Tea would have left Australia only around 60 ahead with only 4 wickets left and plenty of time to go, but Steve Smith seems to be able to walk on water these days.

The highest ever ranking for a Test batsman is Don Bradman’s 961 from a possible maximum of 1000. Steve Smith is up to 947, which no player other than Bradman has ever beaten. It will be very tough for him to move up further: from 900 points up, holding points is tough, gaining them requires almost superhuman performances. By 950, the ratings are designed in such a way that advancing becomes almost impossible. Right now though, Steve Smith does not seem to understand what “impossible” means. When he first came into the Australian side it was as a leg-spinning all-rounder: no one could have imagined that he would become harder to dismiss than anyone since Bradman.

Joe Root and England tried everything except dynamite. You wonder if Moeen at his best might have made something of it, or maybe the high pace of Liam Plunkett but, reality was that if a batsman set out his stall to survive and not make a mistake it was hard to take a wicket, which made the Australian first innings collapse from 260-3 to 327ao all the more astonishing. It also put into context the fact that eight England batsmen got out between 14 and 61: only Alistair Cook got in and made it count.

It will not be 5-0, but there is still a real danger of 4-0.