World Cup 2019, Days 7-10: New Zealand and India are the Early Pace-setters

 

World Cup 2019

Days 7-10: New Zealand and India are the Early Pace-setters

June 9^th 2019

After the War of Dhoni’s Gloves, India have shown that they are warriors not to be despised on the pitch too. In the past we have had England’s footballers threatened with sanctions for wearing a poppy to honour the dead of two World Wars, now were have had Dhoni told not to wear gloves that show his justifiable pride in being an officer in the Indian Army Reserve. While the gloves may seem provocative to Pakistanis, no one should be offended by them when India are playing other sides. Whatever the reasons, the gloves came off today, both literally and metaphorically and Australia were beaten by a far wider margin than the final difference of 36 runs suggests: Australia were always chasing the game and looked extremely lack-lustre for much of it.

While India started very cautiously, they knew that the Australian change bowling was nowhere near as strong as the opening attack, giving an object-lesson in running-up a score. Wickets were conserved and the run-rate increased steadily until the final charge that took the score well beyond anything that the Australians were going to chase down without some special effort. A target of 353 to win meant setting a new World Cup record. Although Australia did not lose early wickets either, they were always struggling to keep up. David Warner played a laboured innings and, by 20 overs, and 19 behind Duckworth-Lewis, the writing was on the wall. The Indian spinners stifled the innings and the batsmen failed to show any urgency until the Required Run Rate demanded suicidal risks, at which point wickets tumbled in a heap. With defeat already certain, hardly a shot was played in anger for the last three overs.

All in all, it was an Indian performance that should worry the Hosts and some of the other sides with ambitions to win.

We have now had fourteen matches and qualification is almost one-third through. New Zealand lead the way, with a huge Net Run Rate advantage, but the cynics would say that Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan were possibly the three easiest matches of the tournament for them. New Zealand’s next game is against India and will give a good idea as to just how competitive they are against really strong opposition, as these are the last two unbeaten sides in the tournament.

The tournament enters a slight lull for the next couple of days. Tomorrow, South Africa play the West Indies in the last chance saloon, otherwise known as Southampton. While, on Tuesday, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh play what is almost a knock-out match. If Bangladesh lose, they will be all but out, while Sri Lanka have looked extremely weak so far and vulnerable to early elimination. Wednesday sees Australia play Pakistan in another match that neither side can afford to lose.

So far, we have had just one, classic match. Australia sneaked home against the West Indies in a game that, quite probably, they should have lost. Had they shown the same fighting spirit against India, the match would have been much closer. The West Indies had Australia on the rack at least three times, but somehow allowed them to escape in a low-scoring contest.

Sri Lanka and Pakistan were unfortunate to be washed-out by the same storm that has caused huge disruption to the French Open Tennis in Paris, a result that will have done the hopes of neither much good. And England… a huge win against Bangladesh suggests that, whatever went wrong against Pakistan, the side is still one to be feared, putting up by some way the largest score of the tournament so far. Cynics might say that “it was only Bangladesh”, but this is a Bangladesh side that had beaten them at the last two tournaments and one showing far more confidence and nous than previous Bangladeshi sides have done. England’s 386-6 was unusual in one respect: normally England set out to score heavily in the first few overs; on this occasion they reached a massive total having blocked-out the first five overs. As India did against Australia, the openers started slowly and accelerated steadily and, finally, brutally. You can criticise England for not finishing-off the game quicker but, perhaps, it is fairer to praise Shakib for an innings as brilliant as it was defiant; 219-4 before he fell to a rejuvenated Ben Stokes and still, just about in the game, Bangladesh’s last six wickets fell for 61.

England are still not firing at 100%: there is concern about the bowling of Adil Rashid and Chris Woakes and Moeen Ali is off-colour, but to win big when firing at only 80% should give other sides pause for thought.

However, even if Australia beat Pakistan and India beat New Zealand, New Zealand’s Net Run Rate advantage is so huge that they are almost certain to top the table still going into the weekend matches. By Sunday night though, the qualification picture for the Semi-Finals will be clearing up fast, with the challengers for qualification down to half a dozen. 

World Cup 2019, Days 4-6: Early Winners and Losers

 

World Cup 2019

Days 4-6: Early Winners and Losers

June 6^th 2019

Seven matches in and we have our first shocks… and, finally, India are about to get a game. What is more, it is not just any old game: South Africa are India’s opponents knowing that, if they lose and start with 3 defeats from 3, they will be teetering on the brink of elimination by the fastest route. Barring a combination of bad luck and run rate, a side with three defeats should progress safely to the Semi-Finals; a side with four defeats needs things to fall their way to make it through. South Africa know that they have real issues. While they might have expected to struggle against England, the way that Bangladesh controlled the game against them was alarming: even when it looked as if South Africa were cruising, you had the feeling that it was never really escaping from Bangladesh’s control.

In contrast, India will have looked at the early results with some satisfaction. Happy for England to be encumbered with the title of tournament favourites, they have watched England slip-up, following a ruthless display against South Africa, with a distinctly sloppy one against Pakistan, who they had beaten so comfortably in the pre-tournament series. Everything that England did right against South Africa (tight bowling, brilliant fielding, calm batting) they did wrong against Pakistan. That England got so close and, indeed, into a position from which they should have won, was down to brilliant innings from Joe Root and Jos Buttler, but, when both got out just as the chase seemed under control, a revived Pakistan were not to be denied. After eleven consecutive defeats, Pakistan are up and running, but India will feel confident that they have their measure.

Sri Lanka won against a spirited, but limited Afghanistan, who must have viewed this match as one of their best chances, particularly after Sri Lanka stuttered and collapsed horribly. That Afghanistan collapsed even more horribly chasing a modest target does not bode well for their chances, but the nature of Sri Lanka’s stuttering win suggests that they will not get away with victory too often and that the best sides have little to fear from them. Meanwhile, India will have watched how Australia beat Afghanistan without ever really overwhelming them and will think that this is not a vintage Australian side.

Five teams have played two matches before India play their first, but the top three in the table have played but a single game, so the embryonic World Cup table has little significance.

India go into the match today as massive favourites and will hope to leave South Africa facing a standing count. The second game of the day is Bangladesh v New Zealand at The Oval: a day-nighter. New Zealand looking to consolidate their flight under the radar and finish the day at the top of the early table.

The biggest game of the tournament so far though will be tomorrow, as Australia take on West Indies at the, normally high-scoring, Trent Bridge. That game may give a real pointer to the Semi-Finals and, potentially, which of these teams is a possible finalist: is this West Indies attack “the real deal” as their opening match against Pakistan suggested, or is it still the West Indies side that came within a hair of being eliminated by Scotland in the qualifying tournament?

After that, the India v Australia game at The Oval, on Sunday 9^th, will be another major pointer to the Final Four. England do not play again until Saturday, in Cardiff, where Bangladesh are their opponents. England will want to show that they have learnt their lessons and will need to win that one big. Bangladesh may just remember that their first win in England came against Australia, in Cardiff.

World Cup 2019, Days 1-3: Early days, One-sided games

 

World Cup 2019

Days 1-3: Early days, One-sided games

June 2^nd 2019

Recent World Cups have been like the Hundred Years War. Gone are the compact tournaments of the early editions. Who remembers that the first World Cup consisted of just fifteen matches: two groups of four, all play all once, Semi-Finals and a Final. The 1979 tournament had the same format. The 2019 tournament has no fewer than 45 group matches – FOURTY-FIVE – to pick four semi-finalists and that with the tournament reduced, controversially, to just ten teams to make it more compact and reduce the number of one-sided matches.

Of course, three days and four matches in, we have seen only one-sided matches. Two have been brief and so utterly uncompetitive that only the most ardent of supporters would have got much satisfaction from them. The other two were one-sided, but at least had some moments of competitivity.

A pattern is threatening to emerge. In all four matches, the side batting first has struggled to set a competitive total. England struggled over 300 thanks to a late flourish and that proved to be enough but, of the rest, Afghanistan’s 207 has proved the best effort.

Today, South Africa play their second match of the tournament before all ten sides have even played their first. In the all-play-all league, you would reckon that three defeats or fewer will most likely see you qualify. With four defeats, other results have to fall your way to get through. Five defeats and you are out. So, we could see the somewhat bizarre situation in which a side has two defeats and can only afford one more, before India have even played their first game. If you are a South African, you will be nervous of losing the Toss, batting and finding yourself 60-5 before the ground has filled with the late arrivals.

Four games are too few to prove a case, but a few eyebrows were raised at the 10:30am starts (of course, Australia and Afghanistan had an afternoon start, so only three of the games have begun at 10:30am). Some years back, England’s 60-over (as it was then) competition experimented with 10:30 starts to avoid twilight finishes. In September, this involved starting while the grass was still thick with morning dew. It led to the most ridiculously one-sided contests and to otherwise fairly anonymous fast-medium bowlers looking like world-class quicks.

Of course, England in early June is a totally different case to England in September. In early June, the Sun rises in Cardiff at 5am (today, it is at 05:01 while, in Manchester, further north, it is a quarter of an hour earlier still), so the pitch has had five and a half hours to dry in the Sun before the start. However, it still makes a few people nervous to think that the Toss may have such a large influence on the result, even if logic says that the dew should have long-dried at the start.

The reason why this “reduced” competition, with no Associates, is still so ridiculously long is twofold.

One, is the obvious one. Back in the West Indies in 2007, sixteen sides played 51 matches, just three fewer than this version, with six more sides playing, but Ireland had the bad taste to eliminate Pakistan in the Group Stage and Bangladesh did the unforgiveable and eliminated India in another group. This led to a Super Eight stage with no guaranteed game between India and Pakistan and with two sides that were far weaker than the rest. Despite Sri Lanka reaching the Final with some, frequently brilliant play, Asian fans switched off. TV revenues plummeted and the bean-counters decided that this situation had to be avoided at all costs in future editions.

So, we have moved to a format in which a single shock result will no long determine long-term success or failure. There have been various formats used at different times. When there are just three group games, one shock result and some back weather can eliminate a side. So, one option was for aides to play each other twice: Ireland (for example) might beat a top side once, but logic states that they are unlikely to raise their game so high several times. So, having each team play six group matches makes it far more likely that the top sides will qualify.

However, this leads us to the second reason for the all-play-all league: it guarantees an India v Pakistan match, probably the rivalry with the greatest fan-base of any sporting event in the world. And, what is more, it is a match with qualification hanging on it, but not the be all and end all of the tournament: with luck, the results will pan-out in such a way that the rivals meet again in the Semi-Final or, even better, the Final. From the point of view of the marketing men, it maximises TV revenue.

However, even a tournament that features 45 matches to eliminate just six teams, could still be made compact. Why does the tournament last more than six weeks, from May 30^th to July 14^th?

The answer is that, unlikely the early tournaments, when two or even three games were played each day at different grounds, with occasional exceptions, just one match is played per day. In the soccer World Cup, we get three and sometimes even four matches per day to complete the Group Stage quickly and to get on to the more exciting, knock-out stage. With so many matches played so quickly, early tournaments went to small grounds around the country. One of the greatest matches of all time in the World Cup was played at Tunbridge Wells, with no TV coverage at all – India came back from 17-5, thanks to Kapil Dev’s 175*, to beat Zimbabwe narrowly as the Zimbabwean chase ended just short. Tunbridge Wells is not even a regular venue for Kent, but it produced a classic.

Of course, again, broadcasting revenues are the reason for the scheduling. Unlike in soccer, the fan-base is not wide enough spread around the world to support several fixtures being played simultaneously and still produce big audience figures.

It all adds up to a tournament that will not come alive until late-June. Right now, there is still the feeling that, even if you lose your first two matches, or three of the first four, you are still alive in the tournament. The excitement will not start until each game has something hanging from it, not just the early jockeying for position that we see in a 10000 metres race.

With such one-sided matches, the take-aways are limited thus far. England found the conditions that the doubters said would be their undoing, but still managed to win comfortably. Australia dispatched Afghanistan with some comfort, even if the Afghan middle-order showed that, if they are given a base to build from, they could be a major force. Pakistan showed the frailties that Pakistan so often show – but remember how the first time that they won the tournament, England dismissed them for 77 in the Group Stages and, had rain not intervened, they would have been eliminated. The West Indian pace attack has revived comparisons with the early tournaments, New Zealand have done what New Zealand do: win, without being flashy, passing under the radar. And Sri Lanka have just looked so out of sorts that one fears for their chances of putting up any kind of performance. And then there is South Africa, who must have been mighty satisfied to limit England to 311, but did not even get close to their target.

Bangladesh play today. India debut tomorrow. By the end of the week things may look so different, but one suspects that the first three or four group games for each side will be probing, without great fireworks, as sides try different things to get points on the board and get used to the conditions and to the pitches which, thus far, are not the expected batsman-friendly tracks producing 420 plays 400 scorecards.

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

 

West Indies v England

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

February 17^th 2019

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

West Indies v England

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

February 8^th 2019

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Indies v England, 2nd Test, Day 3: Awful England Crash Again

 

West Indies v England

2nd Test, Day 3: Awful England Crash Again

February 2^nd 2019

 

The relative batting performance for England and the West Indies can be summed-up in one statistic:

·        Seven West Indian batsmen got a start in their first innings, of whom, only two failed to reach thirty.

·        Seven England batsmen got a start in their second innings, of whom, only one reached twenty.

In a low-scoring Test, in which batsmen never felt in, the ability to grind-out a 30, or a 40 was fundamental. No one on either side got very close to Moeen Ali’s first innings 60, but all seven West Indians who got a start, passed 20 and enough of them chipped-in with 30s and 40s to take them past 300 and a total worth 500 to 600 on a better pitch.

In the 1^st Test, you could think of plenty of excuses: not enough practice, unfamiliar conditions, players a little over-confident, the wrong playing XI picked on the day, misreading of the conditions, etc. They would be switched-on and ready for the 2^nd Test. In fact, the margin in the 2^nd Test was probably even bigger than in the 1^st.

Much has been made of the relative difference in pace between the two attacks. In fact, it was not as great as it might seem:

England	Average Speed	West Indies	Average Speed	Difference
Anderson	81.7	Roach	81.6	-0.1
Broad	83.5	Gabriel	87.7	+4.2
Stokes	84.3	Joseph	85.3	+1.0
Curran	78.8	Holder	78.0	-0.8

Anderson and Curran were both slightly faster on average than their West Indian opposite number. Stokes was a fraction slower than Alzarri Joseph. The big difference was that the England pace attack had no one to compare with the pace of Shannon Gabriel. Although Gabriel only bowled around twenty deliveries in the England second innings that were above 90mph, the menace was always there. In contrast, 88mph was the absolute limit for the England bowlers, even with an effort ball (Ben Stokes bowled a couple of deliveries a little above 88mph, without ever threatening 89mph). Knowing that a really quick ball could come, the batsmen would always be a little tentative above getting into line, in case a ball came that exploded in their face in the way that the ball did to Joe Root in the 1^st Test.

One criticism was that the England bowlers were bowling the wrong length and line. Stuart Broad, in particular, beat the bat on dozens of occasions. Was he bowling too short? Would bowling straighter have helped?

Unfortunately, data is not available for the England first innings, but we can compare the line and length of Stuart Broad in the West Indian first innings and Shannon Gabriel in the England second innings. The comparison is interesting:

 

Gabriel only bowled 9 deliveries that pitched closer than 6m from the stumps. Broad pitched many more deliveries well up. Gabriel’s average length was about 7m from the stumps; Broad’s about 6.5m. Gabriel’s greater pace justified his slightly shorter length, but there is no good reason to say that Stuart Broad was consistently too short.

What about line? Gabriel’s average line to the right-hander was around seventh stump. Broad’s shows more dispersion, but was, on average, almost identical, although around half his deliveries were on the fourth/fifth stump line that Gabriel left almost unexplored. Gabriel pitched just one ball on the stumps; Broad just nine, one of them a toe-crunching Yorker on middle-and-off to the left-hander.

The biggest difference though was between Kemar Roach and Jimmy Anderson:

Anderson’s grouping to the right-hander was extraordinary, his deliveries landing in a box 4 metres long and about 4 stumps wide. The further up he pitched, the closer to the stumps the ball landed, making the batsman play. Roach tended to go much wider of off, tempting the batsman to have a go. In contrast, to the left-hander, Roach bowled more balls in line and was slightly tighter around off stump, with not a single ball down leg. In contrast about a third of Anderson’s deliveries to the left-hander were down the leg side, effectively eliminating LBW and bowled as modes of dismissal: in fact, around a third of his deliveries to the left-hander showed exactly the same tight grouping as he showed to the right-hander but, now, they were the wrong side of the stumps. This was the biggest single difference between the respective New Ball bowlers.

However, overall, there was not a huge difference between Anderson and Broad on one side and Roach and Gabriel on the other: Gabriel was that bit faster and could produce the 90+mph effort ball that was beyond Broad and Anderson’s line to the left-handers was significantly untidier, but there were not the abysmal differences in bowling between the two attacks that some critics perceived.

The big difference between the sides on a difficult pitch was:

(a)    Taking the chances that were offered. England missed too many.

and

(b)   The West Indian batsmen were far more determined to hang in there in difficult conditions and not to give it away. The West Indian batsmen sold their wickets at the highest possible price.

For the 3^rd Test, at Gros Islet, England are hoping for a better pitch because they have seen that, on pitches with life, the West Indians have a big advantage. It would be astonishing if the groundsman did not serve up another spicy pitch, with the West Indians going for the throat. That said, is there anything that England can do to give themselves a better chance?

Denly had two low scores and his one Test has produced 23 runs, compared to the 31 of Jennings. Neither has exactly covered himself with glory. It would be hard to drop Denly and bring back Jennings… and pretty unjustifiable. There might though just possibly be a reason to play both Jennings and Denly, with Denly opening and Jennings slotting-in at #3, where many pundits suspect that he may do better, long-term, although it would be better to go with Burns and Jennings opening and Denly in his accustomed place at #3. While Jennings has not exactly been full of runs, part of the opener’s job is to see off the opening bowlers and get the shine off the ball. That Jennings did do: he faced as many balls in his two innings in the 1^st Test, as Buttler, Foakes or Moeen Ali have in the two Tests combined and not many fewer than Bairstow and Stokes.

One reason to play Jennings would be if there is a second, attacking spinner, because his specialist fielding at Short Leg at least partly compensates a lack of runs. That would be if the selectors went with Jack Leach instead of Sam Curran. Curran is going at almost 4-an-over and has taken just a single wicket in 42 overs of generally quite innocuous seam and, although third in the batting averages thanks to a Not Out, has managed just 50 runs. One suspects that Jack Leach would be a much better foil to Moeen Ali than Adil Rashid, would offer more wicket-taking threat than Sam Curran and, even if he slightly lengthens the tail, that tail has hardly wagged so far in the series anyway, with the last three wickets falling for one run in the first innings and fourteen in the second, having fallen for sixteen and eighteen in the 1^st Test. Overall, Leach is likely to add far more value in total than Curran.

With Ollie Stone withdrawn from the tour and Chris Woakes injured, the Leach for Curran swap is the only one feasible in the attack. Who though might make way to allow Burns, Jennings and Denly to make up the top 3? Jos Buttler’s 55 runs in 4 innings, while not exactly any worse than his colleagues, is certainly no better and it looks as if his hands have been generously spread by some errant kiwi with what was, for my generation, termed “Britain’s favourite butter”. He is also batting at least one and possibly two places too high at #5 If Buttler were to make way, Jonny Bairstow would go back to #5, where he would be likely to make more runs and we would, at least, have a top five of specialists, batting in their specialist position, rather than a mixture of batsmen out of position.

So, although it would make some fans splutter over their morning toast, the following XI would do no worse than the two sides selected so far:

Burns

Jennings

Denly

Root

Bairstow

Stokes

Foakes

Moeen

Broad

Leach

Anderson

West Indies v England, 2nd Test, Day 2: Blackwash Incoming!

 

West Indies v England

2nd Test, Day 2: Blackwash Incoming!

February 1^st 2019

 

Having seen John Campbell survive three false shots in one over yesterday evening, any one of which could have led to his dismissal then, in the next over, play and miss five times, today Stuart Broad saw him reprieved on review (catch by Root at 2^nd Slip), saw Keaton Jennings just miss out on a brilliant catch at Square Leg and saw Jos Buttler make a horrible hash of a dolly at 3^rd Slip, followed by a top edge that dropped safe in his next over. Then Campbell top-edged just out of reach of a chasing Jonny Bairstow. Poor Broad must have been wondering just what he has done wrong. And all the while the score mounted. However, it was also true enough that had Broad pitched a yard further up, he might have conceded more runs, but could have converted a dozen deliveries into wickets. Off came Broad. On came Stokes and, almost immediately, Campbell played the same shot to Buttler, now at 2^nd slip, only for him to hold on this time. Broad’s thoughts must have been unprintable. However, with just a single wicket falling before Lunch, things were looking increasingly black for England. Buttler’s drop was the ninety-seventh catch dropped off Stuart Broad in his Test career: Jos Buttler would make it ninety-eight soon after the new ball was taken after Tea.

It was a day when a batting side could be forgiven for falling to 77ao. It was also a day when taking chances was critical: England had the most awful luck – two decisions overturned (correctly) on review, balls flying just out of reach of fielders, delivery after delivery passing a groping outside edge – but also missed critical chances... the two drops by Buttler and one by Rory Burns. By one count, Stuart Broad could have taken as many as eighteen wickets between balls that beat the batsmen all ends up, edges that just evaded fielders and dropped catches. It did not take long for the feeling to pervade play that this was just not England’s day. And, all the time, John Campbell rode his luck and refused to give it away. It was a lesson in batting for England. This has been one of the biggest differences between the sides: the West Indian batsmen have gritted it out, ignored the near misses - the count was 103 "plays and misses" - and got on with it, while the English batsmen have either fallen to the first chance that they offered, or survived one and then, given it away.

The match situation at the start of the day was that whichever side won the day would win the match. West Indies have won the day clearly and are in pole position to seal the match and the series. England’s only slight hope is to knock over the tail quickly – although there are few signs of that happening – and that one of the top five makes a century. With a lead of 150, which means scoring 250+, the side batting last will have a tremendously tough task. Batting last is going to be very, very tough. It is hard though to avoid the feeling that England will need to do something very special to avoid a 3-0 blackwash as a prelude to the Ashes.