Home

  • Sri Lanka v Pakistan preview

    It was not so long ago that these two teams played each other in the UAE. Both have had decent success playing England since then, but Pakistan will go into this series strong favourites. They have not lost a Test in the last twelve months (winning seven and drawing two) and the conditions will not be too alien for them.

    Sri Lanka, despite a pair of memorable victories over the winter, are a struggling team. Their batting has some serious question marks over it; they have some greats in Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene, but they have not had a lot of support for those two and have been left vulnerable when the big names fail. In 19 completed innings in the last twelve months they have been bowled out for under 250 in eight of them and only passed 400 three times. Their overall team batting average in that span is a mere 28.27. Those two victories over South Africa and England are their only two victories in their last eleven Tests (they have lost five). Both of them came from excellent bowling performances, but overall their bowling has not been any more impressive than their batting. In only four of those eleven Tests have the opposition been bowled out twice and in seven of twenty innings they have scored over 400. Sri Lanka have certainly had their moments, but they are few and far between and one can not expect much from them.

    Pakistan are in almost the opposite situation. They have not lost a Test since being beat by the West Indies over a year ago and won seven in the past year including the famous 3-0 whitewash of England. Their bowling has been consistently excellent, though they have had the advantage of playing mostly on familiar subcontinent pitches. Their batting has also been good, though not to the same extent and like Sri Lanka they are a bit reliant on a few very good players. Unlike Sri Lanka though, they have batsmen down the order to prevent collapses from getting out of hand. Their only real problems, besides occasional collapses, have been still fairly poor fielding and that Misbah-ul-Haq is a fairly defensive captain. When they played Sri Lanka in the UAE last year they probably ought to have won by more than a 1-0 margin, but let a possible victory get away with dropped catches and a lack of attack.

    The combination of excellent bowling, competent batting and mostly friendly conditions has been a very potent one for Pakistan and I see no reason why one should not expect all three to be at play in Sri Lanka. Pakistan should be confident coming into the series and hopefully will be a bit more aggressive. Sri Lanka might be able to bat well enough to get a draw in one of the matches, but I don’t see them winning any and I am predicting a 2-0 series win for Pakistan.

    , , , ,

  • I despair

    I don’t like the All-Star Game, really. It’s great to have it in Kansas City and I am looking forward to it so much that I will be actually watching this year. (I have only watched one of the past five.) But there are still many flaws, the most prominent of which is the voting system used to select the starters. It assumes that those voting will make reasoned, informed decisions on the players they feel are most deserving. I don’t know if that assumption was ever accurate, but despite the fact that stats and highlights are at the fingertips of every single voter it is certainly not the case now. Another update to the current All-Star vote numbers was released today and with it another blow to my respect for the baseball watching public.

    I blogged on the Armchair Selector giving my American League and National League All-Star Game picks. I certainly don’t insist on all of them; I would never suggest that anyone is stupid or ill-informed just for disagreeing with some of them. But some of the current vote-getters are just ridiculous. Mark Teixeira has 1,405,187 votes at first base in the AL, good enough for third place. That means that (assuming 25 votes per person) over 56,000 people think that a man hitting .252 with eleven home runs is a better choice than Paul Konerko who is hitting .359 with twelve home runs. At third base, Alex Rodriguez (a player who everyone seems to have forgot admitted to having taken steroids and was never punished) has 660,000 more votes than Mike Moustakas despite being a worse defender, having a lower batting average and having hit the same number of home runs when playing half his games in a much more hitter-friendly park. Evan Longoria has more votes than either of them despite not even having played enough games to qualify for the batting race.

    That is insane and just two examples of the massive bias toward big clubs. Now, I can accept successful clubs getting more All-Stars. They are successful for a reason. But the problem is when players who are not even vaguely worthy of starting are getting over a million votes. Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira are getting votes purely by virtue of being Yankees; neither of them are having anything other than average seasons. This is ridiculous. A lot of the blame must be placed at the feet of the national channels, ESPN particularly, who show big clubs almost exclusively and focus extensively on the famous players regardless of how well they are actually doing. Players from smaller clubs get largely ignored even when they do well. (It’s worth noting that whilst ESPN is terrible about this, the MLB Network is actually rather good about giving all players and teams a fair look.) The fans who vote are not free from blame either though as they make the basic (and pretty stupid) error of assuming that ‘famous’ equals ‘good’ without doing any actual research of their own. Despite the fact that all of the relevant stats are on the same website as the online ballot. It’s a massive failure of both parties and leads to results that are frankly appalling.

    , , , , , , , ,

  • New stuff!

    I’ve added a feedback form on the ‘About Me‘ page. Now if you have a general comment or question that does not go with one of my existing posts, you can still bring it to my attention.

    And speaking of comments, I also wanted to clarify my policy about them. I don’t really have one and it’s never been an issue before, but yesterday I did get a very strange one. I didn’t publish it because it was on a five month old post and the half that was in English was completely irrelevant to that post. (And kind of crazy.) The other half was in what Google identified as garbled Swahili, though I am by no means confident that is accurate. So some guidelines for commenting (and I’ll try to include a handy link to these later):

    -Stay relevant. If you want to say something that isn’t relevant to a recent post, use the comment form. If you want to say something that’s not relevant to anything I wrote and you feel that you must do it publicly, start your own blog. It’s easy.

    -Stay sane. This is related to the above, but even if your comment is relevant to the post or another comment I am still not going to publish it if it is the equivalent of a guy standing on the pavement shouting at passer-by about aliens.

    -Make sure I can read it. This is the one that I hate, because it’s no fault of the commenter if he or she speaks a language that I can’t read. I genuinely like hearing views from many different perspectives and it seems harsh to limit this to people who can speak and write English. But I can’t really apply the first two criteria to something I can’t read. My advice for people who want to comment in another language is to indicate what the language is and write it clearly, correctly and simply in that language so that I can get the gist of it from a translating service. (And I know those tend to be hilariously inaccurate, but since I know the context there is a chance that it will give me an idea of what is said.) Even that might not work though, so apologies in advance. Also: I read decent Latin and I have a couple of friends who speak French, so both of those languages could work to.

    Other than that, I don’t really care. It’s still a subjective matter and I’ll still treat everything (what little there is) on a case-by-case basis subject to my mood and whims, but I am inclined to let things go through. Even if you just post to call me an idiot I’ll let it go if you can clearly articulate why. (Though just ‘ur a idit’ will probably not get through.)

  • Armchair Selector: 17,000km for five ODIs…

    I wrote a new piece for the Armchair Selector looking at what would be interesting about Australia’s five ODIs in England, why I probably won’t be watching anyway and why I will be keeping a close eye on the subsequent Lions v Australia A series. Have a look…

    , , , ,

  • Euro 2012 group permutations

    The last round of group fixtures in Euro 2012 start today. Happily there is still quite a lot for which to play as the tournament has been a very good one so far. Here are the current permutations for all the groups, (assuming I worked everything out correctly):

    Group A
    No one is safe yet and all four teams can guarantee a place in the quarter-finals with a win tomorrow. Draws can see things get a bit hairy, however. For Russia, a draw is all they need to go through (and will send Greece out) and a win will see them top the group. If Greece can win and the Czech Republic draw with Poland, however, all three of Greece, Russia and the Czech Republic will finish on four points and the de facto tiebreaker will be goal difference*. This would rule the Czech Republic out unless Greece slaughter Russia by six goals or more. More practically, Greece would need to win by three goals or more to top the group in this scenario and cannot top the group if there is a positive result in the Poland v Czech Republic match. If Greece win and one of Poland of the Czech Republic win, that winner will top the group with the loser and Russia going out. In summary:
    Russia – Win: top the group. Draw: advance and top the group if Poland draw or win by three goals or fewer. Lose: advance only if Poland and the Czech Republic draw with each other.
    Czech Republic – Win: advance and top the group if Russia lose or draw. Draw: advance if Greece lose or draw. Lose: eliminated.
    Poland – Win: advance and top the group if Russia lose. Draw: Eliminated. Lose: eliminated.
    Greece – Win: advance and top the group if by more than three goals and Poland and Czech Republic draw with each other. Draw: eliminated. Lose: eliminated

    Group B
    Holland’s poor form has thrown this group open. The situation is similar to that of Group A: no one is yet safe, but Germany are the closest and can go through even with a loss. The only way for them to be eliminated is to lose by at least two goals and for Portugal to win. In such a scenario, Denmark would top the table with Portugal second and Germany third on goal difference. At the other side of the table, the only way for Holland to progress is to win by no fewer than two goals and for Germany to beat Denmark. Denmark can advance if they better Portugal’s result or if they beat Germany by two or more goals. If Portugal match or better the Danes’ result (or Germany are eliminated as above), it will be the Portuguese who will go through. In summary:
    Germany – Win: top the group. Draw: top the group. Lose: advance if loss is by fewer than two goals or Portugal lose or draw.
    Portugal – Win: advance and top the group if Denmark win, but by fewer goals. Draw: advance if Denmark draw or lose. Lose: advance only if loss is by one goal and Denmark lose by at least a goal†. (See additional footnote.)
    Denmark – Win: advance and top group if by two or more goals and by more goals than Portugal or if Portugal do not win. Draw: advance if Portugal lose. Lose: advance if loss is by one goal and Portugal lose by one goal without scoring.
    Holland – Win: Advance if by two or more goals and Denmark lose. Draw: eliminated. Loss: eliminated.

    Group C
    A slightly simpler group than the first two; here Ireland are already eliminated. Spain and Croatia are both on four points and the winner of their head to head matchup is guaranteed to top the group. Italy could advance with a win and and a positive result in the Croatia v Spain match. If that match is drawn, however, we could see another scenario in which three teams finish level on points if Italy beat Ireland. Here, all three teams would have drawn against the other and goals scored in their matches would be the first tiebreaker. Spain would be guaranteed to go through as they would finish level with Croatia and have a better overall goal difference (the next tiebreaker, see first footnote). A 1-1 draw would put all three teams level on goals and make overall goal difference the sole tiebreaker. This would mean that Italy would need to win by at least three goals against Ireland to advance and at least five goals to top the group. In summary:
    Spain – Win: top the group. Draw: advance and top the group if Italy do not win or the score is 2-2 or higher (see above). Lose: advance if Italy do not win.
    Croatia – Win: top the group. Draw: advance if Italy do not win or the score is 2-2 or higher. Lose: advance if Italy do not win.
    Italy – Win: advance if either Spain or Croatia lose, top the group if Spain and Croatia draw 0-0. Draw: eliminated. Lose: eliminated.
    Ireland – Already eliminated.

    Group D
    Similar to Group C in that there are two teams level on four points at the top, England and France, but for the bottom placed team, Sweden, the game is already up. The situation is much simpler, however, with France all but guaranteed already to go through and England guaranteed to go through with a win or a draw. England can advance with a loss and it is the only scenario in which France will miss out: if France and England both lose and France lose by a greater margin than England then Ukraine will top the group and England will be runner-up on overall goals scored. For Ukraine it is simple: they must win, but if they do they are guaranteed to progress. Both England and Ukraine can top the group if they win and France do not, whilst for England a draw and a French loss will also be enough. England can even top the group if France do win, but they will have to win by a greater margin than France. In summary:
    France – Win: advance and top the group if England do not win or win by the same or a smaller margin. Draw: advance and top the group if England and Ukraine also draw. Lose: advance unless England also lose but by a smaller margin.
    England – Win: advance and top the group if France do not win or win by a smaller margin. Draw: advance and top the group if France lose. Lose: Advance if France also lose and by a greater margin.
    Ukraine – Win: Advance and top the group if France do not win. Draw: eliminated. Lose: eliminated.
    Sweden – Already eliminated.

    *The first tiebreaker in this tournament is not goal difference, but head-to-head result. However in this case all three teams would have the one win and one loss against the other two and thus the tiebreaker becomes goal difference in the matches between the teams. Since in this scenario all the teams will have drawn with Poland, the goal difference between them will be identical to the overall difference. The full tiebreaker criteria are in section VI, 8.07 here.

    †Portugal can advance if they and Denmark both lose by one goal. They and Holland will all three be level with three points and a goal difference against each other of nought and the tiebreaker would then go to goals scored against the other teams. Portugal and Denmark each go into the match with three, but only Portugal have the ability to add to it in their match. Thus if they can score at least one goal in their loss, they will still advance in this case.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • England v West Indies ratings

    England were not troubled in their 2-0 victory over the West Indies, but they were some way short of masterful. They were a bit sloppy, especially in the last match, and they conceded almost a third again as many runs in this series (1549) as they did in the three Tests they lost in the UAE (1178). The good news for England that in they were even worse at the start of last summer, conceding 1606 runs against Sri Lanka, with no effects in the second series.

    The West Indies looked like an improving side. Against Australia they never gave up, despite the regular horror-sessions. Here they always looked on the verge of collapsing with the bat, but actually did so only once. They let things get away occasionally with the ball, but did well at regrouping in between sessions and fighting back after intervals. Overall, they were outclassed by England, but can go home with their heads held high. (Or at least they could if they did not still have to play a bunch of pointless ODIs.)

    My individual marks (out of ten):

    England
    Andrew Strauss* – 9
    Came into the first Test at Lord’s with ‘questions’ about his place in the side and responded with a majestic first innings century. Made just one in a tricky spell in before stumps in the second innings, but then came back with a bigger hundred and at a vital time for the team. He finished at the top of the England run-scorer list and second in average. His captaincy was poor by his standards, with the players often looking unmotivated and the field settings characteristically negative.

    Alastair Cook – 6
    A deceptively decent series by the vice-captain. Failed in the first innings in each match, only scoring 54 runs in the three innings. Stepped up when required in the second innings, however. Contributed with an excellent and all but match-winning 79 in the second innings of the first Test and saw England home with an unbeaten 43 in the second Test.

    Jonathan Trott – 3
    Got himself in a few times, but only managed a solitary fifty from the first Test. Did enough to still average over thirty in the series, but it was not really enough from the number three and almost half of his runs came in relatively easy situations. A disappointing series for such a good player, his Test average is now only a little bit above fifty.

    Kevin Pietersen – 7
    Made more headlines off the pitch than on it, but still had a good series. Only had one failure with the bat, in the second innings of the first Test, which he followed up with consecutive half-centuries. Put Shillingford and Narine to the sword in the second and third Tests. Had a century in his sights twice, but got out slightly loosely on both occasions.

    Ian Bell – 9
    In four innings this series, he hit three fifties. Two of them were unbeaten and one of those was a match-winning knock in the first Test. The only time he failed to go past sixty was when he fell for 22 in the second Test. Apart from that, he looked majestic and can count himself unlucky not to have scored a century. He was stranded with the tail in the first Test and was denied by the rain in the third.

    Jonny Bairstow – 0 1
    Looked talented, but never passed twenty in three innings. Undone by Roach in the first two Tests, then by Best in the third. Deserves another chance against South Africa, but looks unlikely to get one. Addendum: I have accepted the suggestion given to me that he deserves one point for the brilliant run out he effected at Lord’s.

    Matt Prior† – 6
    Excellent as always behind the stumps, but only got two innings with the bat. Did not contribute significantly in either of them, but has the excuse of twice coming to the wicket when needing to score relatively quick runs.

    Tim Bresnan – 7
    A series of two halves for Bresnan. Was arguably fortunate to have even been selected for the first two Tests after looking poor in the last Test in Sri Lanka and very poor at Lord’s. Kept up that form for the first part of the second Test, despite getting some tail-end wickets on the second morning. Then showed why he was selected with a some vital runs in England’s innings and then blew away the West Indies. Finished with twelve wickets in the series, second most for either side.

    Stuart Broad – 9
    Was perhaps slightly flattered by his eleven wickets in the first Test, but it is very hard for someone to luck into such a feat. For comparison, no West Indian bowler took more than ten wickets in the entire series. Highest wicket taker in the series with 14 and also contributed some useful runs in the second Test.

    Graeme Swann – 3
    Found life difficult on pitches that were not taking appreciable turn and was only a real threat in the second innings of the first Test. Scored thirty in the first innings of that Test as well.

    James Anderson – 8
    Showed his value most highly in the third Test when he was rested and England were rudderless. His nine wickets in the first two Tests were insufficient reward for the skill with which he bowled, though he did not get the same swing he got last summer.

    Graham Onions – 7
    Only got one innings of one Test, but looked very good therein. Had the best bowling figures of the innings with 4-88 and looked much like the Onions of old. Unlikely to be picked against South Africa, but will have put himself in the selectors minds.

    Steven Finn – 5
    Was not picked until the third Test, despite widespread suggestion that he ought to be. Bowled well in the one innings in which he got the chance, but was a bit wayward on the fourth morning. Looks very good, but perhaps still not quite the finished product and may have slipped behind Onions in the pecking order. Made an amusing 0* as nightwatchman.

    West Indies
    Darren Sammy* – 7
    Continues to get the most out of his side, some feat given the massive internal problems of the West Indies. Showed his batting skill in scoring a maiden hundred in the second Test, but badly threw his wicket away in the other two. His bowling was only that of a useful fourth seamer and nothing more. Should definitely be happy with his efforts, however.

    Adrian Barath – 4
    Not a great series for the West Indian opener, but not a dreadful won. Stuck around well in both innings of the first Test, but never managed to pass fifty and went cheaply in both innings of the second. Comfortably the best of the top three.

    Keiran Powell – 2
    Three single figure scores in five innings and a top score of only 33 make this a series to forget. His only saving grace was that he did manage to drag his innings out and wear the shine off the ball to protect his colleagues.

    Kirk Edwards – 0
    Eight runs total in four innings and seven of them came in the first innings of the second Test. For comparison, Fidel Edwards even managed to score twelve. Dropped for the third Test, needs to do a lot of work to come back.

    Darren Bravo – 3
    Another top order batsman to struggle, he made it into the twenties three times, but not once into the thirties. All the more disappointing after being considered the second best batsman in the order coming into the series. Comprehensively outshone by batsman down the order from him, though was unlucky to be run out by his partner in the first innings of the series.

    Shivnarine Chanderpaul – 8
    Another good series in England for the West Indian wall. Missed the third Test due to injury, but passed fifty (and came close to a hundred) in both innings at Lord’s, plus a 46 in the first innings at Trent Bridge. His only failure was when playing an uncharacteristically wild hook in what would be his last innings of the series.

    Marlon Samuels – 10
    Could almost do no wrong. Out to a loose drive in the first innings at Lord’s, he then seemed to feed off Chanderpaul’s patience (with whom he frequently batted) and after that his lowest score in the rest of the series was 76. Did not look overly threatening with the ball, but did enough to pick up five wickets and was a decent second spin option.

    Denesh Ramdin† – 4
    Scored a century remembered mostly for his puerile celebration in the last Test, but was very underwhelming in the first two. Should be aware that a ton in a rain-ruined dead rubber against a second choice attack is not enough to compensate for three single figure scores in the previous four innings. Was below average with the gloves, but not horrifically so.

    Kemar Roach – 8
    Some ferocious new ball bowling saw him top the list of West Indian wicket takers despite picking up an injury and missing the third Test. His top moment was causing some worry in the gloom at the start of the England run chase in the first Test, but was class throughout.

    Fidel Edwards – 1
    His mark matches the number of wickets he took in the first Test, before being dropped. Most notable for the ridiculous design cut into his hair.

    Shannon Gabriel – 5
    Unfortunately injured after the first Test, but looked good when he played. Someone who should boost the Windies when he returns.

    Ravi Rampaul – 7
    Came in for the second Test and looked quite good. Got the ball to swing and nip about off the seam. Got some important top order wickets in the first innings, especially that of KP when England looked set for a huge total and dismissed Cook twice in the series.

    Shane Shillingford – 1
    Desperately unlucky to have only played in one Test. Left out due to a preference for an all-seam attack at Lord’s and due to a preference for hype in the third. Did not look terribly good on an admittedly flat pitch at Trent Bridge, however as KP and Strauss scored at will off him.

    Assad Fudadin – 2
    Hard to say a lot about a 110 ball 28, apart from it being twenty more runs that Kirk Edwards had scored at that position in the entire series before then. No worse than any other member of the West Indian top four.

    Tino Best – 7
    Came in for just the last Test, but what a Test he had! Made the highest ever score by a number eleven with an aggressive but technically sound innings. Deserved a century, but suffered a rush of blood on 95. Also picked up some wickets in England’s abbreviated response.

    Sunil Narine – 0
    Victim of a flat pitch and two of the best players of spin in Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen, but his 0-70 still did not come close to living up to the massive hype that surrounded his belated arrival. His ‘mystery’ could not even fool the number eleven, Steven Finn.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Edgbaston, day four, Eng 221-5

    Today could have been, and maybe should have been, a terribly dull day. With the first three days and the forecast for tomorrow making a result almost impossible, there was almost nothing for which to play. Instead, and fortunately, we got plenty about which to talk.

    England started the day much as they finished the previous one. All that time they looked keenly aware that a result was not on the cards and not at all keen on the match. It would be easy to look at the scorecard and conclude that Finn and Onions are simply not Test quality and whilst there would be an element of truth to that, the reality is that they generally bowled quite well and the team let them down. Four catches were put down all told in the innings and the fields and tactics seemed slightly more defensive than usual. More than that though, the entire team just looked like they weren’t really there. Michael Vaughan made the good point on TMS that whilst England did not seem to miss the bowling of Jimmy, they did seem to miss his energy.

    It would also be easy to say that England’s rotation policy is at fault here. That is certainly true, but we always knew we would miss Jimmy. Whilst I do not agree with the policy overall, once the first two days were lost I think it was a good idea. By playing Finn and Onions we got potentially important information on how they can fare at Test level and given that the match was overwhelmingly likely to end in a draw anyway, we did not lose much if anything. I think this is probably not at all far from what Flower was expecting to have happened (though perhaps not the poor fielding) and will consider it a success.

    If this was a ‘bowl-off’ for a place against South Africa, Onions was the comfortable winner with 4-88. I doubt, however, whether this will be enough to get him in the XI for the Oval next month. England are still unlikely to play five bowlers, although I disagree with that policy, and Onions and Bresnan were still close enough that Bresnan’s batting will probably keep him in the side. Onions may have passed Finn in the pecking order, however.

    During all this, Tino Best batted brilliantly to get the highest ever score by a number eleven in Tests. He was finally caught for 95, but it was his partner at the other end who sparked a bit of controversy. When Denesh Ramdin reached his century, he took a note out of his pocket and displayed it to the commentary box. The note suggested that Sir Vivian Richards stop criticising him. Whilst it was not a major point, it was poor form. The job of a commentator or analyst is to criticise at times and it was hardly as though the criticism of Ramdin had been unwarranted. It was a petty gesture and did take some of the gloss off the century.

    England stumbled a bit in their reply and it was with this background that Sunil Narine came on for his first bowl in Test cricket. (He could have done so in April, but we’ll let that go for now…) I had heard before the match how he would be a threat to England, how he would make the West Indies competitive again. Which is why I wrote about why he should not be picked. (After which I heard even more support of Narine. As expected, the wicket was flat and England had worked him out after about an over. Narine took 0-70 in fifteen overs. He was not a wicket taking threat, he did not even trouble Finn when the latter came in as a nightwatchman, and he was not even vaguely keeping it tight. Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen were both treating him with contempt by the time he came off. By comparison, Marlon Samuels took 1-29 in nine overs. Welcome to Test cricket…

    , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Armchair Selector post: All-Star Selections

    With the All-Star Game (in Kansas City!) not too far away, and more importantly with enough of the season gone that one can fill out a meaningful ballot, I have looked through the stats and video and compiled my starting IX for the American League and starting XIII for the National League over at the Armchair Selector. I’ve taken care to select players without regard to my own opinion of them (which is the only way Jose Bautista was getting onto the list) and only their actual performance. Do have a look and if you like them go vote for them!

    , ,

  • Edgbaston, day one three, WI 280-8

    The good news was that we finally had some cricket today. The bad news is that the cricket itself made a result much less likely. It was a day that would not have been out of place in either of the first two matches. England were the better side and on top at stumps, but were also sloppy throughout and should have been on top by more. The West Indies were outplayed and whilst they did give some of their wickets away, they did not just capitulate.

    It was already known that England were resting Anderson, but they sprung a slight surprise by resting Broad and thus letting Finn, Onions and Bresnan all bowl. As far as bowling went, this worked okay. All three took wickets and all looked good. Anderson, however, was missed in the slips, where Bell put down two of the three chances that went to him. To be fair to Bell, he is not usually a slip fielder, but it did raise the question of why it was Bell in the slips and not Baristow, who keeps wicket for Yorkshire.

    On the whole, all three seamers bowled well. There was the surprise of Bresnan taking the new ball instead of Finn, who is more suited to it, but this was rectified by the time the second new ball was available. There was also the predictable five overs of Trott and Swann was largely ineffective on what is effectively a first day pitch. But the West Indies should have been bowled out and probably bowled out well before stumps. England seemed to lack a cutting edge, which has really been a bit of a problem all series. There were a total of three drops in the slips and twice an edge went through the vacant third slip. The carelessness in the field was annoying, but the negative field setting was worse. This is a three day Test and one which it is almost impossible for England to lose and yet there were only two slips in for the second new ball. It was absolutely pointless caution. Whilst this would not usually be surprising from Strauss, in this case he had at least given Finn a full slip cordon in the morning with the original ball, so why not with the second?

    Restoring that ‘bite’ is something which England must do before the series against South Africa starts. If one looks back on the home series against India; there were a few chances that went down, but only a few and almost none that played a big part. I’m sure England did drop some chances in the Ashes before that, but none are at all memorable and I don’t think there were more than a couple. Even when we were losing in the UAE we held our chances more often than not. Putting down three in a day (and a few more earlier in the series) represents a troubling aberration. Although it would be disappointing, hopefully this is no more than a case of the players not being ‘up’ for an early season series against a weak team. We did see much the same against Sri Lanka last year. Whatever the problem is, it needs to be solved before the Series against South Africa.

    The combination of sloppiness and negativity cost England the opportunity to put themselves into a great position. The West Indies batted decently, but still threw a few wickets away (Sammy, particularly, appeared to forget or disregard the batting lesson from the first two Tests) and were overmatched in any case. The fact that England could not take advantage is disappointing from the perspective of the match itself. The best chance to get a result was to only play three innings and the best chance for that to happen was for England to bowl the West Indies out for under 200 and get a big lead by the end of day four. Now it looks like England will not have time to do so and will have to look to skittle the West Indies on the last day and quickly chase it. It is much less likely and whilst it would be a bit harsh on England for anyone to expect them to win, they did have a chance and have made it much harder on themselves.

    , , , , , , , ,

  • Euro 2012 preview

    Euro 2012 starts this Friday. England go into the tournament with almost no expectation; even the new coach Roy Hodgson has tried to play down England’s chances. And having watched (most of, until I started to fall asleep) England’s recent friendlies I am inclined to agree. England won both of them, yes, but never looked better than scrappy. That’s okay if one can scrape out a win against an equal or better side, but a tough 1-0 victory against Norway is not really a credit. England’s squad, whilst not ridiculous, is far from inspiring. The only good move was to make Gerrard captain; apart from that the squad is made up of good players but only a few one would consider to be true international quality. (And I say that knowing full well the number of Liverpool players in the squad.)

    The best news for England was probably the draw, which was relatively favourable. England are in Group D, which appears to be the second easiest after Group A. England will still have some difficulty actually topping the group, however, and it is by no means assumed that they will make it to the knockout rounds. The main opponent will be France and whilst les Bleus are unlikely to strike fear into any team until they can redeem themselves for the last World Cup, I would still be surprised to see England win. (Though I was not expecting the England rugby team to win in France during the Six Nations either.) England are also in the same group as Sweden, who England have not beat in a competitive match in some large number of years. There is also Ukraine. England should beat them, but they are good enough that if England don’t play well there is every chance that they could be held to a draw or even lose. Whilst one could see England finishing anywhere in the top three, my guess is that they will scrape to second. My second guess would be a third-place finish with topping the group a possibility, but an unlikely one.

    The most interesting group should be Group B. A competitive Holland v Germany match is always a good thing, but this time it will possibly shape the entire tournament. With respect to Portugal and Denmark, the other two teams in Group B and certainly no pushovers, Holland and Germany are the strong favourites to make it out of the group and the set up of the knockout stages means that they will both have relatively easy quarter-final matches. Whoever finishes as runner up in the group, however, are likely to face Spain in the semi-finals whilst the group winners will have a much easier match against either the winner of Group D or the runner up in Group C. The winner of Group B should thus have as easy a path to the final as for which could be reasonably hoped and there is a good chance that the winner of the Holland v Germany match on the 13th will be that winner.

    My prediction for the entire tournament is summarised in this bracket:

    In more detail: Holland win their match against Germany and top Group B. Greece top Group A with Russia coming second, but neither provide significant opposition in the quarter-finals. Spain win Group C with the Republic of Ireland upsetting Italy to take the runner up spot. England play sloppily against Spain and lose, but give the impression that they would have had a chance if they had been more precise. Ireland have a chance to get some measure of revenge on France from 2010, but lose a fairly low quality match. Holland beat France relatively easily in one semi-final, whilst Germany and Spain dig in for a good match that Germany eventually win. The final is then an absolute cracker, but the Dutch reprise their group stage victory.

    , , , , , , , , ,