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

 

Don’t Panic Captain Mainwaring!

November 10^th 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of Arrows and Rakes and Bumbling Administration

 

Of Arrows and Rakes and Bumbling Administration

October 13^th 2017

The County Championship finished on September 28^th – or did it? More than two weeks later, mind you, it feels like longer, we still do not know who will be relegated from Division 1. And, what is more, it may be a week or two before we do.

The whole business is surreal. Once again, after the season is finished, after the points table is apparently settled, behind closed doors, the “final table” is being re-designed. A bad precedent was set in 2016 that “final” is not final. Then, a county that had finished 4^th in the table, a position that brings not inconsiderable prize money, received a draconian post-season penalty that led to relegation, a millstone of points deductions for 2017 and, ultimately, to an exodus of players that threatens the club’s chances of returning to the top flight in the near future. In the unseemly scramble afterwards, Hampshire, who had finished 10 points from safety, with just 2 wins – fewer than any of the teams above them – but who had seemingly, well before the end of the season been given assurances that they would not lose their first division status – were not relegated. Meanwhile Kent, second in Division 2, explored taking legal action to defend their right to promotion, unhappy that the ECB’s decision to reduce Division 1 to eight sides to allow the First Class programme to be reduced, allowed just one side being promoted from what was a very strong division.

No one was particularly happy. Durham felt that they had been unfairly punished. Kent that they had been denied a legitimate right to return to Division 1. Somerset that they had been cheated by a contrived result in the Yorkshire-Middlesex game. And almost everyone was left with a feeling that justice had not been done in changing things after the season had finished, allowing a relegated side to escape.

In 2017 we have had Rakegate and  Arrowgate rumbling on.

Now, if the 2017 table had been like the 2016 table, neither Rakegate nor Arrowgate would have mattered. In 2016, the gap between 4^th and relegation was 45 points. The smallest gap between sides in the table was the 6 points between Surrey, in 5^th (a small amount of prize money) and Warwickshire in 6^th.

In 2017, the gap between 4^th place (a not inconsiderable £50000 prize money) and relegation, with its threat of an exodus of players and loss of gates and sponsorship, was just 2 points.

Let’s go back to the afternoon of August 31^st. Middlesex are playing Surrey at The Oval. Middlesex have conceded a 33 run first innings lead. The third day’s play has been washed out completely, leaving Middlesex 15-0 in their second innings, 18 behind and the match seemingly heading nowhere fast.

As the final day started, 15-0 effectively became 15-1 with Nick Compton unable to bat. The first twenty minutes or so of the day do nothing to suggest that we will not have a rather quiet day with a token declaration after Tea. Then the fun started: three wickets in sixteen balls left Middlesex effectively 38-4, just 5 ahead and in real danger of defeat; at Lunch, Middlesex were 96-6, 63 ahead and with no sign still of Nick Compton and seemingly spiralling to a barely credible defeat. You would put good money on Surrey finishing it off in an hour after Lunch and then making light work of a token chase. It did not happen because Middlesex engineered an astonishing fightback, led by the underrated John Simpson and, finally, Nick Compton reappeared, almost immobile, but at his obdurate best.

4:20pm. Middlesex are 214-7. The lead is 181. A maximum of 31 overs remain and even the most diehard Surrey fans are admitting that the game will end in a draw. The betting is that Middlesex will continue for about half an hour and make a token declaration with most people thinking of the “4:50 handshake”.

At this point, those listening to the commentary and those in the ground are suddenly gripped by confusion. There is something in the ground close to the square and the players are heading off, some of them at a really good clip. After several minutes of utter confusion it becomes evident that the mystery object is a crossbow bolt. Mark Church and Kevin Hand, two of the very best on the county commentary circuit and despite being locked in the commentary box for their safety, do a brilliant job of describing what is going on, helped by the fact that they are being fed information assiduously by players and by fans in the ground, including photos of the object. Soon armed police are on the scene and investigating reports of a noise in the OCS Stand that may have been a second bolt hitting (suggesting that The Oval was deliberately targeted), or could have been the first bolt ricocheting or, just possibly, was unconnected to events on the pitch. Many of the details of the incident are unknown and will presumably be revealed only when the matter comes to trial (there was a swift arrest), but we do know that the bolt was fired from 800m away and could have been a killer had it hit.

The post-script was that Middlesex were -2 on over-rate when the match was abandoned. So, with no chance to make up the overs, were docked 2 points.

Here, the waters muddy – as usual. Middlesex say that they were aware of the need to make up overs, were about to declare and, when the match came to its sudden and unsatisfactory conclusion, were assured by the umpires that their report would recommend that no points deduction be made. However, nothing of this assurance was written down and, in the confusion, the umpires’ report did not include the withdrawal of the penalty.

Two points were deducted. Middlesex were told that there was no appeal process. End of matter. After all, there was no significant danger of relegation – Middlesex were 24 points clear with only 4 games to go and in with a real chance of 3^rd place given that the gap to Hampshire, who occupied it, was just 13 points. Only a few people were looking at the fixture list and warning that the last game of the season was at Taunton, Somerset had a score to settle and that it would be wise not to bet everything on getting the right result in that game.

For some people the deduction was poetic justice. Middlesex have sailed close to the wind so many times on points deductions for slow over rates. It is not unknown for the scoreboard to show -5. And Middlesex have relied on their scorer – known to them as “The Magician” – to fix things, session after session. It is a standard joke in the club that if the scoreboard shows “-2” at any interval, he will get it back to “0” after a chat with the scorers, pointing out to them this and that little delay for which allowance must be made. How many points he saves them over a season is not recorded, but 20 to 30 is probably not too far away. When you depend on such sleight of hand, it is inevitable that some time you will be bitten.

Fast forward three weeks. Middlesex have had the worst of a sodden draw at Headingley in which, on the last afternoon, they could have batted on in the hope of an extra bonus point that was just 28 runs away. And then the match at Uxbridge was drowned. Suddenly Middlesex are in the relegation places, although just 1 point covers Yorkshire in 5^th and Middlesex in 7^th, with Somerset ahead of Middlesex on the first tie-breaker of wins. Hampshire and even Surrey, in 3^rd, are not safe, with just 13 points covering the sides from 3^rd to 7^th.

Middlesex always state that they have the huge disadvantage that, as tenants, they cannot prepare pitches to suit their strengths but, instead, must accept what they are given. They struggle along with dead, lifeless surfaces in their home games. Surprisingly though the game was played on a pitch described as “worn by a season's graft” and as “green and played to type, but … already in a state where "plates" were evident on the first morning”. Fifteen wickets fell on the first day and another fifteen on the second, which would normally have the pitch inspector calling. Neither side complained because both needed a result pitch and a win.

Forty wickets fell for 734 runs on a surface on which one England prospect was put out of action by a blow on the hand and batting was always difficult and, at times hazardous. However, despite losing two bowlers injured, Steve Finn, bowling like a demon, saved a match that had looked lost when Lancashire were just 71 short with five wickets left.

Off to Taunton and the last round of matches. Any one of four sides could still go down, but Middlesex’s worries had been considerably relieved by Surrey winning a tense match to defeat Somerset in the latter’s game in hand.

So, we came to the last round of matches. Somerset needed a 16 point swing with Middlesex to avoid relegation. With a win and identical bonus points, Somerset would go ahead on the first tie-breaker of matches won (4-3).

Middlesex knew what was coming. It was going to be a result pitch. It was going to turn a lot. So, what did they do? With Ollie Rayner out injured, they played one specialist spinner (Ravi Patel, who had played just one Championship match in 2015 and one in 2016 and for whom this would be only the second game in 2017), left specialist Nathan Souter out of the final XI and played no less than three occasional spinners to allow an extra batsman to be included. Somerset, in contrast, played 3 spinners with a grand total of 98 wickets at 23.95 over the season. Middlesex’s foursome could, before this game, boast just 9 wickets, albeit at a slightly lower average. It was defeatist tactics.

Again though, things turn muddy. At the Toss, the pitch was seen to be very worn – no surprise there – with rake marks on a good length.

At the end of a first day that ended with Middlesex 18-3 in reply to Somerset’s 235ao, Middlesex made representations to the Cricket Liaison Officer at the match about the apparent raking of the pitch before the game to make it break up.

Here, all manner of questions arise.

If Middlesex thought that the pitch was unfair or dangerous, why wait to the end of the first day to voice their concerns?

You could say that there was an ingenuous “we wanted to see how it would play” before making an appeal. There is also the more cynical interpretation that had Middlesex won the Toss and made a par score, they would have been quite happy to take advantage of the pitch. What happened though was that Somerset picked-up some easy runs against non-specialists and a main spinner who, logically enough, took a few overs to find his length and Somerset were allowed to make more than they should have in what was obviously going to be a low-scoring game.

Middlesex also found themselves in the position that, after seeing the opposition make an over-par score, they would need to score 250 and obtain 2 batting points to insure against defeat. At 18-3 and with your batsmen reading Linear B better than they were reading Jack Leach, that suddenly looked an impossible task.

To get the moral high ground – and especially after serving up a very dodgy pitch themselves in their previous game – Middlesex should have made strong representations to the umpires and the Cricket Liaison Officer *BEFORE* the Toss. They could have demanded a different pitch be cut. Then, even if their demand had not been met, they would have been able to claim the moral high ground. By waiting and by making what looked like a dreadful selection error *and* by using the surface poorly and thus putting themselves at a disadvantage, it is so much easier to cry “sour grapes”.

Even if you were not at the game – and there was a good crowd all through – close to 1000 spectators were watching the game live on the YouTube channel, with very good quality images. In fact, the YouTubers probably got a far better view than the spectators in the ground, with cameras at both ends and the ability to go back and replay events. The YouTube chat was revealing: many Somerset and Middlesex fans, a good number of neutrals. And not a few people feeling that Middlesex had more or less given up and were showing little appetite for the fight. Where was the spirit of that game at Lord’s on a difficult and, at times, almost dangerous pitch where, with two key bowlers missing, Middlesex survived a massive fightback from Lancashire to win against all odds? With a few honourable exceptions, the Middlesex batsmen seemed overawed  by the pitch and the bowling was not tight enough. There was also some understandable grandstanding: yes, you may complain that the pitch is turning square on the first morning (it was not), but when you fixate on that message, you end up reducing your own batsmen to quivering jellies, thinking that they faced an impossible surface.

Inevitably, Somerset even had the luxury of declaring their second innings and won by the huge margin of 231 runs. The game produced more runs (741) for fewer wickets (39) than the game at Lord’s  two weeks earlier, but all the talk was of the strange surface and the possibility of a points deduction.

All this put Somerset one point ahead of Middlesex and ahead on the first tie-breaker of wins. With one day of the season to go, now Middlesex needed favours from other sides to avoid relegation.

You have to say that through the game the BBC commentators and particularly Middlesex’s Kevin Hand, were very careful with their comments. With the balance of one commentator from each team and a neutral, third voice, listeners were kept appraised very dispassionately about the events. After Day 1 were heard that the Cricket Liaison Officer was going to “sleep on things” and wait until after Day 2 to give a verdict. Here, the rules are quite clear: a points deduction can be made only in two cases:

1.     A pitch that is rated “poor” that has uneven bounce and/or is dangerous on the first two days.

2.     A pitched that is rated “below average”, if there has been a similar rating given in the previous 12 months.

Somerset were in the clear on “2” and, although the odd ball went through low or bounced, you had to be pretty draconian to rate it as in anyway dangerous, or even as having particularly uneven bounce. There was far more poor batting – particularly poorly executed sweeps and reverse sweeps – than there were impossible deliveries. However, there was a feeling that the preparation of the pitch had been somewhat unsporting, even if there was also a feeling that Middlesex had been defeatist and resigned to their fate from the start and certainly did not help themselves.

So, back to Rakegate. A statement was expected after Day 2. The statement was that no statement would be made until after the game.

This produced wild speculation. Did it mean that there would be a points deduction? Were the ECB going to wait for the end of the Warwickshire v Hampshire game, in which Hampshire were facing a defeat that would have relegated them by 3 points?

In the end, the pitch was marked as “below average”, which would not imply any sanction and Hampshire settled matters by hanging on for a quite incredible draw, showing all the bloody-minded defiance on a big turner at Edgbaston that Middlesex had failed to show at Taunton. End of matter? Of course not!

A second Cricket Liaison Officer was called. He inspected the pitch the day after the game ended, took statements from umpires, captains and groundsmen and went away again, saying nowt.

As far as I am aware, there has been no final statement on the pitch. There is nothing in the Conditions of Play that would permit a sanction and, over the years, far worse has been seen. To cite just one example, in a particular Test series with the score 3-0 and the seamers of the visiting team running riot, players and broadcasters arrived at the stadium for the 4^th Test to find a team of groundsmen scrubbing the pitch with wire wool to remove any shred of grass. Or, when Tests were played on matting, it was common practice for the nails that held the pitch to be loosened when the visitors batted: making a dead surface come suddenly to life.

The betting was that Somerset would only receive a wrist-slap – possibly a written warning – but, the longer that things go on, the more that conspiracy theorists are having a field day.

Two points from salvation, Middlesex returned to the sanction from the Surrey game a month earlier. Should they be relegated for a clerical error?

Why wait until after relegation to appeal? The Middlesex line is that they have been playing ball and not making waves, having been told that no appeal was possible.

Of course, the timing is suspiciously convenient. There is also a certain suspicion that, as the restitution of the two points would relegate Somerset, a decision to correct that deduction would kill two birds with one stone: Somerset cannot be sanctioned directly for their pitch preparation, but can be indirectly by giving Middlesex their two points back.

The revised table would then be:

4. Yorkshire, W4 L5, 148 points

5. Hampshire, W3 L3, 148 points

6. Middlesex, W3 L4, 148 points

7. Somerset, W4, L6, 147 points

A single point would separate Yorkshire and their 4^th place prize money and Somerset, who would be relegated.

Another way of looking at it is that if Somerset had scored 15 more runs in their first innings against Middlesex, they would have finished 5^th and taken the final prize money place, based on the tie-breakers that are successively most wins and then fewest defeats, with Middlesex again being relegated.

The more time goes by, the worse the mess gets. Somerset are taking legal advice in case the ECB decides to relegate them retrospectively and have a strong case. They say that they would have played differently if they had known that they needed to reach 250 and not 200 – given the rather cavalier way that they gave away wickets having obtained the batting point that they wanted, this might simply have been to grind out a few extra runs rather than preparing a radically different pitch. Middlesex feel that they have a strong case not to be relegated either. And the fans in general feel cheated that, once again, relegation may be decided behind closed doors rather than on the pitch.

The longer that the ECB takes to resolve matters, the worse it looks. The danger of a legal challenge and still further consequent delay in deciding relegation is getting greater and we are just a month from the publication of the 2018 fixtures. They are getting themselves into a bigger and bigger mess.

What are their options? None are good:

1.     Do nothing. Middlesex are told that it is hard luck. Nothing in the rules covers their case and please, just bowl your overs faster next season. Oh and by the way, Cardiff, Bristol, Durham and Hove are nice places to visit. Enjoy Division 2.

2.     Give Middlesex the points back. Relegate Somerset. Rely on defeating any legal challenge to the decision.

3.     Give Middlesex the points back as it will not affect the distribution of prize money, but change the rules retrospectively such that only one side is relegated. Somerset keep their Division 1 status and after one season of eight teams in Division 1, we would be back to nine teams.

Option (3) seems to be the one that would annoy fewest people the least, but it comes with various dangers.

·       Would the Division 1 return to 8 teams in 2019 and, if so, would 3 teams be relegated and 2 promoted in 2018? If not, do they have “2 down, 1 up” as in 2016? It was agreed that 3 teams being relegated in a 9-team top division was too many, but telling the competitive Division 2 that only one side can be promoted will cause howls of protest.

·       If the season is to be made up of 14 games, is it right that not all sides will play all others twice? In an extreme case, one team could play the two promoted sides just once, both away and another side play both promoted sides home and away and thus have what is, on paper, a much easier fixture list. The fixture computer could conceivably decide the title and relegation.

·       Would Northamptonshire appeal? Middlesex’s plight has been received with indignation in Northampton, as the difference between them being promoted at the expense of Nottinghamshire and staying in Division 2 were the 5 points deducted for a slow overrate when they had three players injured, an outfielder as wicket-keeper and were being bombarded by Riki Wessels in the Nottinghamshire v Northants match on August 29^th. Northants fans argue that their circumstances were just as special as Middlesex’s and if Middlesex’s overrate penalty is lifted, theirs should be too. Of course, any Northants appeal would upset Nottinghamshire who feel that they have won promotion fair and square… and so it goes on.

No one comes out of this situation with much credit.

Middlesex can blame a crossbow bolt and a clerical error all they wish, but their problems are mainly of their own making. Their slovenly overrate through the season was a constant worry, with it seemingly only a question of time before a points deduction came. Similarly, on August 7^th they were 30 points clear of relegation and with a game against Warwickshire to come. They must have been thinking of moving up into second or third in the table with this game in hand: however, not only did they contrive to lose badly, giving Warwickshire their only win of the season, but then they had the worst of the draw against Surrey, struggled against Yorkshire and although they had the better of the draw against Hampshire, the amount of play lost to poor covering at Uxbridge gave a dreadful impression and condemned the game. Defeats to the bottom two in the table during the run-in were hardly the mark of the Champion county and their only win in the last six games was a heart-stopping one. There are rumours of dressing-room unrest and the fighting spirit of 2016 was only occasionally present. In the end, a delayed declaration against Essex early in the season and some poor choices on and off the field, time and again through the season, were the difference between being in the mix for second or third place and a battle for survival.

Somerset are always under the microscope. Teams talk about “playing on the beach” at Taunton. Somerset will say in their defence that they are following the ECB’s guidelines to produce more spin-friendly surfaces. The result has been to see Dom Bess and Jack Leach promoted to the winter Lions tour, shadowing the Ashes and Jack Leach knows that if Sydney is spin-friendly, he must have a chance of a Test debut. What though is the line between playing to your strengths and sharp practice? Just because the playing conditions let you get away with a particular type of pitch preparation, is it licit to take advantage of the loophole? If Somerset are allowed to rake their pitch, what is to stop another side taking even more extreme measures, for example to make a pitch break up completely on the second day? Is it right that a pitch offer big turn on the first morning? Somerset have been poor all season and only escaped the relegation places in September as Leach and Bess became a lethal duo on tailored pitches: many will say that salvation has not been earnt, although they will cheer the fact that Marcus Trescothick will have one, last tilt at being a Championship winner before he retires.

And the ECB? Widely criticised for the ridiculous overkill of the Durham sanctions in 2016 that have caused a great deal of bitterness and for the way that Hampshire were assured “don’t worry, you won’t be relegated”, can they really afford to decide relegation in a meeting room two years running? It makes a mockery of the competition on the pitch. And now, a month and a half after the Surrey game and two and a half weeks after the season ended, there is still no decision. In fact, the ECB website, rather alarmingly for Somerset, does not even show an official result yet for the Surrey-Middlesex game. How much more can they dither? Can they really invent the rules after the end of the season yet again? Are they even going to be able to give a definitive verdict before the new fixture list comes out? Will whatever decision is arrived at be challenged in the courts?

Even Hampshire, who have done little or nothing to demonstrate that their reprieve in 2016 was really merited, are not exempt from some criticism. It has led to cynical suggestions on the final afternoon that, even if they lost, their friends in London would see them right and make sure that they stayed in Division 1. Their accidental reprieve in 2016 has not been forgiven, particularly the suggestion that the cheque book and influence had a lot to do with it and might well have saved them again, had the situation arisen.

For heaven’s sake, ECB: bite the bullet and take a decision for once. And make it a reasoned one this time. You got the County Championship – our premier competition – into this mess, now find a dignified way to sort it out.

West Indies v England, 3rd Test, Day 3: West Indian Collapse Papers Over the Cracks

 

West Indies v England, 3^rd Test, Day 3: West Indian Collapse Papers Over the Cracks

September 9^th 2017

It says a lot that, despite everything that went on in the 2^nd Test – a great advertisement for 5-day cricket – that, but for rain, this match would have ended in a fraction over 2 days. The four innings totalled just 203 overs: well under 7 sessions. My estimate that the last two Tests would sum no more than seven days of cricket for England to resolve their numerous issues was pretty close to the mark.

When you are desperate for a win – and England had to win to avoid going to Australia in crisis – to find an opponent willing to make life easy helps a lot. With the best batting conditions of the match expected, at least in the morning, the Sun shining, Shai Hope at the crease and the batsmen showing some real grit, the script was for England to have to battle for their wickets. There was that nasty thought at the back of the mind that if the West Indies dug in for the first hour they could set a really difficult target. Three deliveries, including a play and miss first ball and Jimmy Anderson settled any nerves:  vote of thanks to Royston Chase for his prod outside off. Seven overs later, five of them maidens, which included a really bad drop by Broad and a successful review by Blackwood, Anderson added Blackwood and, at 100-5, it was all over bar the shouting. Two wickets in the first nine overs of play, less than forty minutes into the day and West Indies effectively 29-5 and sinking fast.

This has been the biggest difference between England and their rivals all summer. The ball has usually been on top in all seven Tests but, when England were four wickets down, one tended to think that the bowlers were through the tail and now the real batting would start. In contrast, the middle and lower orders of South Africa and West Indies have tended to bow and wave the bowlers through.

The West Indies, like South Africa before them, desperately needed a couple of 50 partnerships to give their bowlers something to defend. Shai Hope needed someone to show the same fight that he has shown through the series and stand with him. The sad fact was that, in a familiar pattern from the South Africa series, the partnerships kept being broken before they could become annoying: 48 for the third wicket; 25 for the fourth, 23 for the sixth; 32 for the seventh; 22 for the ninth.

However, despite the fact that the current Australian team cannot hold a candle to the teams of 2006/07 or 2013/14, one doubts seriously that they will be so accommodating come November. It is unlikely that we will see seaming pitches or atmospheric conditions that allow massive swing; the Australians will not continue this summer’s trend of the opposition being “Six out, all out!”

If Joe Root could have made a wish, it would have been to chase 107 without alarms. A ten wicket win would have been nice but, failing that, decent innings for the two players under most pressure – Stoneman and Westley – would have been high on his wish list. At very least, he got this. Two red-inkers – 40* for Stoneman, 44* for Westley – but lest one get the urge to run around shouting “Whoopee! Crisis over!” the runs were mostly scored against an attack that had given up long before. Once England had knocked off 35 at runs from their target at 5-an-over it was obvious that there would be not early clatter of wickets and the seamers were rested for later battles. At least one can say that Stoneman and Westley knocked off the target with assurance and playing some shots. As an exercise in building confidence, it has done its job but, for Tom Westley at least, it is too little, too late. He has been found out and the Australians will be waiting for him if England are foolish enough to persist with him at #3.

Trevor Bayliss has stated that the squad for Australia will come from the players who have featured over the last 12-18 months. That allows for several recalls, but seems to rule out a recall for Sam Robson.

One assumes that the squad will be of 15, with two spare batsmen and two spare bowlers. As there will be a shadow Lions squad playing cricket it would make no sense to take two wicket-keepers. A sixteenth player will only rob other players of desperately needed practice and is extremely unlikely to get a Test unless the batting crisis is as severe as it was at the end of the last tour: you do not plan to be whitewashed… at least, one hopes that that is not in the plans.

Of the XI in this Test, those certain to tour are:

Cook, Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen Ali, Broad & Anderson.

Stoneman and Malan have done enough to get a place on tour, although not necessarily in the starting XI.

One assumes that Roland-Jones, who has made a great international start, will go, but again may be in a three-way flight for a single place in the starting XI.

That leaves five slots to fill.

Provided that they are fit – and in the case of Mark Wood, that may be an awful lot to ask as his latest “minor injury” has led to him missing the whole West Indies series – Woakes and Wood will be players 11 and 12. You cannot ignore an all-rounder with the class of Woakes, who has nine First Class centuries and three Test fifties despite batting as low as #9. Similarly, Mark Wood is the fastest bowler available and one assumes that having someone who can whistle the ball around the ears of the batsmen at 90mph will be essential.

One also assumes that the selectors will want to take Haseeb Hameed if he can give them any excuse to do so, although he is still far from being in form and is in no way ready to return to Tests. If Hameed is picked, Keaton Jennings will miss out, even if he scores runs now (his return to County cricket has not been a success), but Jennings will almost certainly have the consolation of the captaincy of the Lions and the likelihood of a call-up if he shows form (rare is it now that there is not an injury replacement on tour).

It is widely assumed that Alex Hales will be recalled to bat at #5 and plug one of the gaps. It is his natural position in red-ball cricket and his brutal form this season has made him the obvious candidate to compete with Malan for the #5 spot.

That leaves one spot. Traditionally it goes to a young player and is likely to go to a bowler, probably a spinner, although England are unlikely to field two spinners in any Test.

The likely candidates are, in order of likelihood: Ben Coad, Tom Livingstone and the favourite, Mason Crane. The losers in this shootout will undoubtedly get a lot of cricket with the Lions.

So, the likely squad is:

Openers: Cook, Stoneman, Hameed

Batsmen: Root, Malan, Hales

Wicket-keeper: Bairstow

All-rounders: Stokes, Woakes, Moeen,

Quicks: Roland-Jones, Broad, Anderson, Wood

Spinner: Crane

However, there is no specialist #3 in the squad. It could be filled by Root, although he is far more successful and prefers batting at #4 & #5. It could also be filled by Jennings who, over the winter, was regarded as the natural #3 in a top order of Cook, Hameed, Jennings, Root, but just as injury and illness have led to a catastrophic loss of form for Hameed, Jennings’s golden period that saw him score huge numbers of runs and centuries between April 2016 and May 2017, has come to a horrible end and there are, for now, no signs of recovery. It is also possible that the selectors may keep faith with Gary Ballance as he was the man in possession until breaking a finger.

West Indies v England, 3rd Test, Day 2: Series in the Balance

 

West Indies v England, 3^rd Test, Day 2: Series in the Balance

September 8^th 2017

England’s strange Test summer has taken another turn. For a significant part of the day it seemed possible that the West Indies score of 123 could yet give them a first innings lead. At 63-5 it was far from impossible that England might be rolled for under 120. At 119-6 and 134-8 it seemed that the first innings lead might be a very small one but, in a low-scoring match, even a lead of 20 could be vital.

The tactics at that point though were odd. With batting a lottery and the obvious thing to do being to get back out and bowl and exploit the conditions, the tail, with its big-sitting batsmen, appeared to be happy to poke around. Moeen tentative in his brief innings. Broad, painfully aware that he would not get many in his own half, managed just 3 from his first 14 balls. Roland-Jones 6 from his first 11. Even if the days of his 169 against Pakistan and frequent Test 50s are long gone, never to return, he is still a clean hitter when the mood takes him and can change momentum with a quick 30. Toblerone has become a powerful hitter down the order for Middlesex who is developing the ability to hit a quick 50 (he has 1x100 and 8x50 in First Class cricket and is creeping up the batting order as his batting becomes more consistent). Then, the chip changed and, for a few minutes the destination of the match changed: 11 from an over by Gabriel, 6 from Roach’s next over, 5 from Holder, before nine dot balls inevitably led to the fall of Roland-Jones. In came Anderson and the leather flew briefly and gloriously, overs going for 12, 8 and 8, including a couple of sixes. Sixty added for the last two wickets in 11 overs and suddenly the lead was 71 when, not long before, England would have given grateful thanks for a lead of 21.

When the West Indies started their innings, batting was still not offering any job security. At 21-2, with batting still looking uncomfortable in murky light and many overs, plus the potential extra half hour to come, you could even dream of a two-day finish. It did not happen because Powell and Shai Hope put in some solid batting in a crisis, as they had in the first innings. Powell did not reach the Close, but by then the West Indies were effectively at parity and Chase and Hope could see the side through to the Close. You can see how much the West Indian side has grown during the series.

West Indies start what is now, effectively, a one-innings match at 22-3. The difference is that today is expected to be a day for batting. If they can see through the first hour it could be a long day for the bowlers and England could face a really testing target on Day 4. If, in contrast, England can take an early wicket the match may finish quickly.

Other factors that add intrigue? Broad has problems with his heel again and may struggle to bowl many overs or to bowl flat out. And Anderson, now in the 500 Club, has received two warnings for running on the pitch. Were Anderson to be removed from the attack for a third transgression, England’s attack would be severely stretched, with Moeen suffering another end of series crisis of confidence and form. However, the key bowler for England today may just be Roland-Jones, who has a knack of taking vital wickets just when they are most needed.

The match and the series are in the balance with, maybe, England just slightly ahead. England though will not want to have to rely on Stoneman, Westley and Malan to win the game for them. If Cook and Root fall cheaply, panic reigns and right now, there is not too much faith in the rest of the top order being able to cope with a panic.

West Indies v England, 3rd Test, Day 1: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

 

West Indies v England, 3^rd Test, Day 1: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

September 8^th 2017

The script was for a 3-0 series win against the West Indies and an argument about which of the new players in the side who had filled their boots against a sub-standard team might be good enough to go to Australia.

The reality is that the match is a decider in the series, that the West Indies have won two of the last three Tests between the sides and that England’s record in the Final Test of series since 2013 is so diabolically bad that the unthinkable – a series defeat – is a real possibility.

And, just to make things more interesting, the Test is at Lord’s, where England do not have a good recent record. And lost the Toss, which has, in the last few years, almost invariably been a prelude to defeat.

There is also the small matter of the Test future of Stoneman, Westley and Malan being very definitely still in the air. All have scored a fifty. All have shown flashes of ability. All have shown real vulnerability. And none of them have been able to turn a fifty into a big score. With just two rounds of County Championship matches to go for any alternatives to show their hand, the Test becomes a last opportunity to avoid yet another selection crisis. Reality though is that there are not a whole lot of other options without dipping into Division 2 cricket and there the lesson of Ben Duckett was clear: it is one thing flogging Glamorgan or Derbyshire in front of a couple of hundred die-hard fans, it is a whole different problem to do the same in a Test against India, or Australia, … or Bangladesh. Save the occasional, rare exception, the selectors have to draw from the reducing pool of English-qualified Division 1 players and there are not many of them left who are credible candidates and who have not been tried.

Quite apart from the real issues, there is a further sub-plot: Jimmy Anderson’s 500^th Test wicket.

When Jimmy Anderson took two early wickets in helpful conditions to move to 499, one assumed that the 500^th must come any minute. West Indies 22-2 and scoring at just 1.5 runs per over. Rout seemed imminent and, with it, that warm sensation that Headingley never really happened and that all is well after all. It is the sort of warm feeling that Australia have awoken to having, not without some alarms along the way, put the world – or at least, Bangladesh – to rights. From there though, things seemed to go horribly wrong. Shai Hope and Powell took the West Indies to Lunch at 35-2 after 20 overs and built from there. All the failings of Headingley were present: Broad was not getting his lines right, his heel injury flared-up badly again, Stokes did not look like taking a wicket and, after a good start, Anderson looked human and Cook was dropping catches.

The one difference with Headingley is that when Plan A did not work, Joe Root could at least throw the ball to Tobias Skelton Roland-Jones. Unlike Chris Woakes, who never quite got his length and line right, Toblerone knows what is needed, even if he did not make his accustomed immediate impact. Finally he got a ball in the right place and was fortunate enough to see Alistair Cook hang on. 78-2 with the two batsmen beginning to play their shots and nothing much happening, looked ominous; 78-3 looked so much better, but still well short of what it should be.

Then suddenly there followed one of these odd sessions of play where all logic seems to have gone out to lunch. Ben Stokes has rarely looked threatening with the ball all summer and today was no exception… until Kieran Powell, who was batting very well and looked set, belying his Test average of 26, to add to England’s woes, drilled the ball straight back at him. Good catch. Soft wicket. Thanks very much! Then Toberlone bowled a straight ball – admittedly a surprise weapon from England this summer – Jermaine Blackwood aimed a massive cross-batted slog and the stumps were scattered. Toberlone continues to keep his Test bowling average under 20 in his fourth Test, which is not one of the predictions that many pundits would have made about how this Test summer would pan out. The comfort (if you were a West Indian), or discomfort (if you were English) of 78-2 had become 87-5 and West Indies were sinking fast.

Moeen Ali came on to exploit the breakthrough and, first ball, could have picked up a wicket. Toss it up, bit of width, loose shot from Chase, edge – just wide of slip. How often when he gets a quick wicket does Moeen Ali start to shine. If the first couple of overs go wrong, his biorhythms go wonky. The pitch map would later report that Moeen had all the control of a paint spray; where was the bowler who had laid waste in the first five Tests of the summer? As in Bangladesh and India, a series that has started so well, seems to be ending in a series of full tosses, long hops and occasional leg side filth.

Fortunately, there was Stokes. You would have got long odds against Stokes being the main threat with the ball today. After a loose first over, his next nine produced 36 dots, a No Ball, four singles and three wickets. Suddenly Stokes looked like the devastating bowler that we know that he can be.

There is much debate among the fans about Woakes v Stokes. The argument is plain daft. Stokes is the nearest thing that England have produced to Ian Botham since 1981. Stokes is an impact player who can turn a match around in a session with a quick century, or a burst of 5-10 but, on other days, will manage a duck and 0-60 from 8 overs. He is not as reliable a bowler as the Botham of 1977-85, who could take the new ball and run through a side, but he is as near as we have seen. Chris Woakes though is a steady, reliable pro. He will not make stunning Test centuries, nor is he likely to take a spell of 5-1, but if you want someone to come in and score 40* nursing the tail, or to take 3-40 in 15 mean overs, he is the man. You want both in your side: it would be like having both Botham and Flintoff in your team… a genuine luxury.

Yesterday though, was Stokes’s day, even if another catch went down in the last over before Tea when Root dropped Holder off Stokes and then Holder creamed the next ball for four. Stokes was not impressed and followed up with three snorting deliveries.

119-7 at Tea and England beginning to rise to the occasion. Anderson with the ball after Tea and the tail in his sights. What no one had warned him was that he needed to be quick. Stokes allowed him just two overs to get the 500^th. When Jimmy A did not strike, Stokes did. His post-Tea bowling was 1.3-1-0-3:

…W…WW

Stokes is on a hat-trick in the second innings and finished with 14.3-6-22-6. Who needs Anderson or Broad?

That was the limit of the good news.

Now the bad news: England had to bat under lights.

Within 13 overs things had got downright ugly.

After 13 overs England were 19-3 and both Stoneman and Westley had gone for single-figure scores.

Even if he were to score runs in the second innings it is unlikely that Westley would be on the plane to Australia. Straight ball. Plays down the wrong line. LBW.

25, 59, 29, 9, 8, 3, 8, 8. Sadly, Westley has been completely found out at this level.

Stoneman’s case is more difficult: 8, 19, 52, 1. It is only his third match. It would be harsh to drop him, but he most certainly has not made a good case to go to Australia.

And, while Stoneman and Westley failed, it did not go unnoticed that Haseeb Hameed gritted his way to his highest score of the season in the gloom at Old Trafford. Make no mistake, Hameed is still in desperate form. No way is he ready to play a Test, but one of the signs of a player who has what it takes, is his ability to make ugly runs when in desperate form.

Even at 19-3 there was time for things to get worse. Joe Root’s wicket made it 24-4 and the West Indies are looking at an unlikely first innings lead. England start the second day with Malan (another who needs a score to seal the trip to Australia) and Stokes at the wicket and, at least battling. No one knows how much play, if any, there will be on the second day with rain and bad light threatening the day but, it may just be that rain is the only thing that will take the match deep into even a third day.

At 46-4 and still 77 behind, England can ill-afford to lose a quick wicket and much less two early in the day. Australia have their problems, but if they are quaking in their boots right now it is more likely to be with stifled laughter.