-
Dunedin, day three: New Zealand 402-7
Day three was certainly a better day for England than day two was. The day was overcast and the seamers got a bit more help and especially once they got the second new ball in the afternoon. It wasn’t so good that England could get back into the match, however, and that is largely down to the efforts of Hamish Rutherford in the morning. He scored 171, four more than the entire English team, before departing to the first delivery of the second new ball and has almost single handedly given New Zealand their lead. Especially on debut, it was an enormously impressive innings. The next highest score for the Kiwis is only 55, though Brendan McCullum is 44 not out overnight.
That innings from McCullum is important also in it’s timing. He came in with New Zealand teetering a bit on 310-4 and it was then very quickly 326-6. New Zealand were certainly in danger of not getting the lead that they wanted and maybe not even a lead over two hundred. But McCullum scored his runs very quickly and often quite streakily whilst England kept the field up to attack and has scored better than a run-a-ball whilst getting the lead up to 235. It was particularly frustrating for England after they had done very well to get an opening, only to see it slam shut on them.
The drizzle and bad light meant that play was abandoned early again, which from this position will suit England. But the game has progressed so fast that even losing the better part of four sessions to the weather has not made the impact one would expect. New Zealand probably have time to bat a bit more in the morning, but McCullum should strongly consider declaring overnight. With the lead already 235, England will have to bat for most of the day just to reach parity and from there it will be more than a session into day five before they can make the match safe. New Zealand can make this task a bit harder for England by batting on, but I very much doubt it will be worth taking the additional time out of the match. The pitch is flat and expected to stay flat and New Zealand may want as much time as possible to bowl England out and possibly chase a target. The only reason for New Zealand to keep batting would be if they were worried about possibly losing the match, which is not even a vaguely realistic concern at this point.
-
Dunedin, day two: New Zealand 131-0
After the first day was washed out, England will probably be left hoping that the third fourth and fifth days will also see nothing but rain. This was probably the worst single day of cricket I have seen from England since 2009; even the debacles in the UAE had more positives than this performance.
I said in my preview that New Zealand could be a dangerous side and although they did show that today, England were simply far too careless. The fact that the spinner Bruce Martin ended up with four wickets on a pitch that wasn’t turning tells the story all too clearly. It’s hard to know exactly where to put the blame for England’s batting performance. They should have had another warmup match, but I don’t think the lack of one is a sufficient explanation. The fact that the entire first day was lost may have also taken a toll on concentration, but that is purely speculative and it certainly did not seem to hurt New Zealand. I worry that in fact England simply thought that there was nothing in the pitch or bowlers to concern them and paid dearly for that thought.
That said, some credit must also go to New Zealand. Neil Wagner in particular bowled very well and as a group they had clear plans in mind and showed very good discipline in bowling to those plans. Brendan McCullum, controversy about being handed the captaincy notwithstanding, did an excellent job. Never could he have hoped that England would so carelessly fall into the traps he set, but he and his bowlers did everything right to set them up. This is not a surprise in itself, but something England did not seem to have recognised.
What was rather more of a surprise was how well New Zealand batted. Certainly England were deflated after being bowled out for such a low total, but there was not a lot expected from Hamish Rutherford and Peter Fulton and they went about showing just how tame the pitch was. New Zealand have had a lot of problems with their opening combinations in the past, but Rutherford in particular looked very composed and competent on his debut. It’s far too early to say too much about him, but seeing someone finally succeed at the top of the order must give New Zealand supporters a lot of hope.
England bowled fairly well in the evening session, but it took them a bit to get going and with so few runs on the board the bowlers really had little chance. Stuart Broad was probably the pick of the bowlers; he was the most economical and also produced three clear chances. Unfortunately for England, two were dropped (one a sitter) and the other flew through a vacant third slip. It was very much that kind of day for England. Jimmy Anderson and Steven Finn also caused problems, but never managed to actually take a wicket or even produce a clear chance.
England were bowled out so fast that the loss of the entire first day now doesn’t make a lot of difference, though it does give England at least a sniff of a chance of a draw. They will probably have to approach the third day as a clean slate and although they are utterly up against it, they will have to get whatever they can out of this innings and then see where they are. They may take some heart that on this ground a year ago South Africa were bowled out for around 230 in the first innings before putting up 450-5 in the third innings. Obviously we saw last summer that England are not as good as South Africa, but it does suggest that the pitch won’t get much worse for batting as the match goes on. (New Zealand also got off to a very good start in their chase in that match, before the weather intervened.) The next three days will be a very interesting test of England’s resilience and whether New Zealand can make the most of a good situation, something with which they have often struggled. The match isn’t over, but England will really have to improve to get anything out of it. And maybe do a rain dance for good measure…
-
Swann’s elbow and England’s spinners
On the field it was not an exciting first day of the New Zealand v England series, unless one feels that seven hours of rain are particularly interesting. But there was a surprising moment at the toss when England made a late change to the XI after Graeme Swann was ruled out of both the match and the series due to the elbow problem that he has had for the past several years.
Swann is going to America to have surgery on the elbow and he is expected to be back by ‘early summer’ and England are said to be targeting a return in time for the Champions Trophy. But given the utter pointlessness of that competition, it is surely a better idea to have him play in the County Championship and prove his fitness ahead of the back-to-back Ashes. Whilst England could certainly still win the Ashes without Swann, we know just how much of an asset he can be even at home and especially the way Australia have been playing spin in India there is no reason at all to risk Swann in the Champions Trophy. There is literally nothing to gain and plenty to lose.
This brings the question of England’s reserve spinners to the fore, both for the next couple of series and as a reminder that Swann may not have a lot of cricket left in him. For the short term there is Monty Panesar who performed decently in the subcontinent in the last two winters and has replaced Swann in the XI for the Dunedin Test. There is also James Tredwell who has been playing when Swann has been rested from the pyjama squads. Tredwell has been called into the Test squad as (extra) backup, but I would be very surprised if he got a match. There is little to no chance of England playing two spinners and I doubt that Panesar will bowl so poorly as to be dropped, unless England decide to play four seamers. (Which, given Onions’ form in the warmup also seems vert unlikely.)
I expect Panesar to still be in the XI for the return series in May, but it may be wise for England to give a game to one of the younger candidates instead. None of Simon Kerrigan, Scott Borthwick or Ben Stokes impressed on the recent Lions tour of Australia (though to be fair, no one did), but they will have each had a handful of County Championship matches to try to make a case ahead of the first Test as well. If England want to give someone a taste of international experience then one of the early season Tests when everyone is thinking about the Ashes is a decent time for it. I would probably still have Panesar as Swann’s backup in the Ashes (unless he bowls very poorly in New Zealand) simply due to his experience, but it won’t be long until neither he nor Swann are available and England should take this as a reminder to start choosing a replacement and getting him ready now.
-
New Zealand v England preview
After England won both pyjama series 2-1 and lost the only red ball warmup match, we are finally approaching the meat of the tour: the three match Test series which begins in Dunedin on the sixth of March (fifth of March for those in the UK). England will be strong favourites after a first win in India for 28 years and after New Zealand were badly beaten in both Tests in South Africa. But this is not a New Zealand side to be underestimated and they will have Tim Southee and Ross Taylor returning, both of whom were absent in South Africa.
England did not play Jonny Bairstow in the warmup which should end any possibility that he may still compete with Joe Root for the number six spot. As I’ve written before, this is very generous to Root and harsh on Bairstow. England did give Graham Onions an opportunity to press his case for either Stuart Broad’s or Graeme Swann’s spot as the fourth bowler, but he took only one wicket for 213 runs in the match. The effect of this is that unless Broad suffers a recurrence of his heel injury ahead of the fourth Test, England’s XI for the first Test at least is all but set in stone. I suspect it will take an injury or a very poor performance for there to be any changes for the other two matches as well.
New Zealand added Neil Wagner to their squad for the first Test after he impressed against England in the warmup. With Southee, Trent Boult and Doug Bracewell all available for the first Test I don’t see any way for Wagner to be one of the three main seamers, but New Zealand’s only spin option in the squad is Bruce Martin. Martin is uncapped and has a first class average over 35 and I don’t think it would be a terrible idea for New Zealand to play Wagner instead in conditions that will likely help the seamers. It’s a tough call and unfortunately for New Zealand a tough call because neither player has done much to demand selection. I suspect it will be a decision made once they have had a look at the pitch, but right now I’d lean toward Wagner.
Even with the return of Taylor to the New Zealand side, I am not expecting much from the New Zealand batsmen. They were pretty thoroughly demolished in South Africa and even having returned home I don’t think they will find life against Anderson and company much easier. I’d be surprised if we saw any more double figure scores, but I think they will really struggle to put England under pressure. A lot will depend on New Zealand’s new opening pair of (presumably) Hamish Rutherford and Peter Fulton. New Zealand’s middle order is fragile and exposing them to the new ball is a recipe for disaster. Even if the top two can’t put a lot of runs on the board, they need to consistently form long partnerships to make sure that the Kiwi middle order do not face the teeth of the English bowling. In other words, they need to do the job of an opening pair.
New Zealand’s real strength, however, and where they might really cause England problems is their bowling. Southee was in the form of his life before missing the South Africa series with injury, but on his return to the Plunket Shield he promptly took 9-149 in a match. Boult and Bracewell are also both quite dangerous, though they have probably not shown it as often as New Zealand would like. Especially in their home conditions England can expect them to be a handful. England’s batsmen are quite good and won’t be in terribly unfamiliar conditions, but I still expect they will have a few low scores.
The player to watch may be Nick Compton; he has not yet solidified his place and this will be a very different ask than opening in India was. England still have the option of opening with Root and Compton probably needs to prove his worth here to make sure that Andy Flower doesn’t start thinking along those lines. Root himself need to show that his efforts in Nagpur were no fluke, however. As mature as he has looked it is easy to forget that he only has one Test to his name, but he does. He could yet find himself under pressure as well.
England are favourites, but if they did not already know that this would not be a walkover then their defeat in the warmup will have made that point quite clear. I expect New Zealand will have a few good performances in the series and will put England under pressure at times. The problem the Kiwis have is that when they do perform well they really struggle to back those performances up and consistently perform to the standard of which they are capable. England are a good enough side that if New Zealand continue to be so hit-or-miss they will struggle most of the series. I expect them to do enough to avoid the whitewash and with the weather also an issue I think the series will finish 2-0 to England, though 2-1 is a possibility. New Zealand might be able to get a draw or more, but only if they perform consistently well and England consistently or frequently fail to play to their standard.
-
India win by eight wickets
India took a 1-0 lead in their four match series against Australia earlier this week, winning the first Test in Chennai by eight wickets. It wasn’t a comprehensive win for India though and there are still things that both sides need to address.
For Australia, the obvious problem was spin bowling. It looked like a concern when they announced their squad and so it proved. The pitch was a very dry, turning surface but Nathan Lyon ended up with just 4-244 in the match and 3-215 in the first innings. On a surface where even Ravichandran Ashwin took 7-103 in the first innings, it was nowhere near good enough. The usual response is that Indian batsmen play spin well and that even Warne struggled in India, but a cursory glance at the figures for England’s spinners just a few months ago shows that such objections are rather outdated. This is where Australia must improve for the second Test, but the problem is that Lyon actually is their best spinner. Even if they want to play a second spinner in Hyderabad that spinner would appear to be Xavier Doherty, a man best known for having a Test bowling average over one hundred. (His exact figures are 3-306, for which he can largely thank Kevin Pietersen.) The only other options are Steve Smith and a pair of uncapped all-rounders who bowl spin. None of them would appear to be improvements, however. This is going to be an ongoing problem for Australia and unless they get more seam friendly wickets they are going to need Lyon to step up in the next three Tests.
India would be well advised not to think that a return to winning ways means that all their problems are solved, however. It was certainly a decent win and one in which they did a lot right. But they were helped by Australia playing poorly and there are issues at which to look. The obvious one is that their openers combined for just 37 runs in the entire match. Gautam Gambhir was dropped before the series started, but his replacement did not do any better and the man (well one of them) who should have been dropped, Virender Sehwag, had another poor Test. The middle order, and in particular MS Dhoni, utterly saved them. Four hundred and twelve of their 572 runs in the first innings were scored by three players and whilst that is far from a disaster it must be a bit disconcerting given that only Virat Kohli is really a long term option. Sachin Tendulkar’s days are numbered and not numbered very high whilst MS Dhoni can not be relied upon to consistently rescue his side. As long as Australia continue to struggle with the bowling this probably won’t be a huge problem for India, but they will be a lot happier if more of their batsmen contribute.
But as obvious as the imbalance in the results produced by their batting order is, their bowling is probably a bigger concern. The pitch in Chennai was a turner and after the result produced there it’s fair to expect the next three to be similar. But the Indian seamers did not take a single wicket in the match and Australia did put up 380 in the first innings. India are relying on the pitches actually turning as much as they want and on Australia not improving enough with the bat to negate this. Both are risky assumptions and the Indian spinners have not shown a lot of menace on pitches that have not been tailored to give them extra help. It would not take much to go wrong for India to find themselves looking at a big total.
There isn’t a lot of time for either side to do much ahead of the second Test. I expect that India will use the result as an excuse to go in unchanged, but Australia surely have to make at least one change and give themselves at least more spin options. It would not surprise me if they made two or three changes, perhaps bringing in both Smith and Doherty plus the usual rotation of a fast bowler.
-
New Zealand XI v England XI
England begin their only red ball warmup match of the tour of New Zealand later today when they play a New Zealand XI at Queenstown. England look fairly settled in selection and their focus in the match will presumably to get some time in the middle for the players who were not part of the pyjama leg of the tour and probably to make sure Stuart Broad is fit enough to bowl multiple spells. I suspect then that they will play an XI close to the one that will feature in the first Test, with perhaps Jonny Baristow for Ian Bell and Graham Onions for Steven Finn.
The fact that England are only having one warmup and look pretty settled means that there isn’t much of a chance for Bairstow and Onions to push for a spot, however. This is harsh on both; Bairstow has not done much worse than Root and certainly the declarations of Root being the reincarnation of Len Hutton that appeared several days ago are rather premature. Bairstow’s highest score is actually larger than Root’s and against better bowling as well. Root has done very well, but only has two Test innings to his name. I don’t doubt that England will have him pencilled in for the number six spot in Dunedin, but it is far too early to guarantee him a long term spot with both Bairstow and James Taylor having also done well. Both can count themselves unlucky that they won’t have much (or in Taylor’s case any) chance to make their case ahead of the Tests.
Onions is also a bit unlucky. New Zealand conditions will suit him rather better than those of India and with question marks still over Broad’s fitness Onions would have liked a decent chance to show that he should be preferred. Even if Broad is fit, however, Onions could be pushing for a fourth seamer spot if England decide to go that route in one or more of the Tests. I would be very surprised if they did, but with the weaknesses the New Zealand batsmen have shown against seam movement it is not entirely out of the question. It is something England will want to at least keep in mind and only having one warmup may hurt them as it may not give a chance to properly asses whether Onions is an option for a four seamer attack.
New Zealand have picked a relatively strong XI for the warmup including a handful of players who will be pushing for a spot in the XI for the first Test. In particular there is one opening spot and one bowling spot which are at least partly up for grabs. Hopefully then this will make for a reasonably competitive match from which both sides can draw actual conclusions about their sides. It’s too bad that there isn’t another, but that does at least mean that it won’t be long until the start of the first Test!
-
MCC loses its mind over Steven Finn’s knee
The MCC today made an absolutely ridiculous decision to institute a law so that as of 1 October of this year if a bowler kicks the stumps in his run up it will be a no-ball. This is in response to the ongoing ‘problem’ of Steven Finn doing just that. But the affair has been blown wildly out of proportion and this new law is utterly misguided.
Finn is far from the first bowler to regularly to kick the stumps in his delivery stride and his habit of doing so is far from a new one. The issue only cropped up last summer when Graeme Smith claimed that it was a distraction. Whether or not that is true can never be known, though given the very large number of times it had already happened with no complaints from batsmen it seems rather unlikely. Still, Smith was within his rights to say it was a distraction and in that case he should pull out of the shot and the umpire should call dead ball. That is all well and good and as long as it all happens before or just as the ball is bowled there should be no problem.
But then the umpires and ICC mysteriously decided that despite Smith being in an overwhelming minority in finding the bails distracting, they were going to start calling kicking the stumps a dead ball almost every single time. Except sometimes they weren’t and they weren’t ever going to make it clear when they were or weren’t. What ought to have happened and what still ought to happen is nothing. If the batsman is distracted let him pull out, but otherwise play on. Given how often the resulting ball goes for four it seems they aren’t generally too put off. It is a simple solution to what is really an exceedingly minor issue. There is no need to penalise the batsmen certainly and if they are truly distracted they still have recourse. The matter need not go further.
It is good that the MCC decided to deal with the uncertainty surrounding the issue, but deciding to punish the bowler for committing no crime is insane. There is no advantage gained by the bowler in hitting the stumps; he is not releasing the ball unreasonably close to the batsman nor at an unreasonably large angle. If it is distracting then the batsman already has the means to ensure that no advantage is gained by the bowler. (And if the batsman truly is distracted, then that is a matter for a dead ball, not a no-ball. It is just like someone walking behind the sightscreen.) This is another law tilting the scales in even more in favour of the batsmen and with no rational justification at all.
One person who will be delighted at this is Smith. Never in his wildest dreams could he have hoped that his little bit of gamesmanship last August would be this effective.
-
It still isn’t Trott’s fault
New Zealand won the opening ODI by three wickets last night after England batted first and failed to put up a big score after being in a good position. As usual a lot of the blame for this has fallen on Jonathan Trott who is considered to have scored his runs too slowly. The contention is that by scoring slowly he puts too much pressure on the lower order to score more quickly and get the total up and that this time it cost England.
Trott scored 68 off ninety deliveries though, hardly glacial and was in fact England’s top-scorer. He is in the side to lay a platform for the explosive hitters in the tail and he did exactly that. The problem was not Trott, but that the lower order got out instead of getting quick runs. There’s no reason to think they were under undue pressure after Trott’s innings; Jos Buttler, for instance, has a List A strike rate of 120. He is going to score quickly regardless of the situation and the same is largely true of Eoin Morgan. Their role in the side is to accelerate late in the innings; this should not be a surprising or pressure situation for them. In fact one would not expect them to score quickly for 25-30 overs as they would have to if they came in without a platform. They would either get out or have to slow down. But England’s current tactics mean that they do not need to; they can play freely and score quickly for about ten overs after Trott, Bell and Cook have done their job. The reason England lost is because Morgan et al failed, not because Trott batted too well.
This is borne out by looking at England’s results over the past year and a half. England brought in this tactic about the time that Cook became ODI captain and what the people who blame Trott for England’s losses tend to forget is that England have actually been very successful in ODIs since then. Since the start of England’s home summer in 2011, England have had results in 35 ODIs. In the 28 in which Trott has played, England have 18 wins, nine losses and a tie. In the other seven England have won only three and lost four. The tactic of letting Trott lay a platform has been demonstrated to be a success; it is not why England lost the most recent ODI.
-
Australia win the Women’s World Cup
What has been a disappointing tournament for England finished with their winning the third place play-off (despite there not being a semi-final) on Friday and today the tournament itself concluded with Australia beating the West Indies in the final after the latter were bowled out well short of their target of 260.
It cannot be said that the best side did not win; Australia paced themselves well and the only match they lost was the dead rubber in the last round of the Super Sixes. The fact that they were able to shrug off the loss of Ellyse Perry was astounding and the only real wobble they had was against England in a match they subsequently won anyway. They now hold the ‘Triple Crown’ of the Ashes, the fifty-over World Cup and the T20 World Cup at least until the one-off Test in England later this summer.
England played well in spells during the tournament, but always seemed to be a little bit off the boil. Both of their losses were very narrow defeats (off the last ball against Sri Lanka and by two runs to Australia), but even in the matches they won it often seemed to be on the back of very good spells and in spite of periods of mediocrity. The biggest example of that was the bowling; they instigated early collapses several times in the tournament, but only once did they convert that into a properly low score. They let each of India, the West Indies and Australia off the hook and it cost them dearly against the Aussies.
The format was a very poor one and it certainly did not help England, but ultimately they have only themselves to blame for missing the chance to defend their title. As much as there should have been at least a semi-final round, England ought to have beat Sri Lanka in the first match and then ought to have beat Australia in the Super Sixes to make it to the final anyway. As it was, they were left hoping Australia did them a favour and it was not forthcoming. England simply did not play like a Champion side in the tournament and I think they can have no complaints about the finish.
-
England players in the IPL
Just a day after Matt Prior talked of England players being frustrated to miss out on the various T20 leagues around the world, the Professional Cricketer’s Association has said that England’s cricketers are ‘substantially underpaid’ and suggested they be compensated for missing out on T20 leagues. It is a stance to be expected; they are a union at the start of contract talks and if they didn’t say their clients should be paid more then they would hardly be doing their job. They may even be correct; I don’t know how much Cricket Australia, for instance, pay their players relative to the ECB.
But that only applies to the actual pay coming from the boards; the notion that the players be compensated for missing out on T20 leagues is ridiculous. There is no way to know on what sort of money, if any, England are missing out; even a cursory glance at the IPL salaries shows that there is no rhyme nor reason to how much the individual players make and it is nonsensical to try to compensate them for that. There is also the fact that England’s players are eligible to play in the IPL and indeed any T20 league that does not conflict with the international schedule. The most notable example is Kevin Pietersen, but there are several England players who have taken part in these events. They are considered less valuable because they have to play for England, but it is hardly an onerous requirement for the players to put the cricket for which they are centrally contracted ahead of foreign domestic events. Apart from anything else, the fact is that the players are compensated for not playing in the T20 leagues; their compensation is the opportunity to play for their countries. I am not so unrealistic as to think that should be their only motivation, but it certainly is enough to be compensation.
The frustrations of the players for missing out on the high-paying T20 leagues is understandable, but unavoidable. As I have pointed out before, there is simply no time for each of the various events to fit in the calendar and international cricket must come first. Just looking at the IPL, the BCCI are unwilling to compromise on the timing of the tournament (or anything else, for that matter) and there is no more room for the ECB to compromise. The England players are already allowed to play in half of the IPL, any more concessions from the ECB would not be compromise but surrender. Such a surrender would damage the ECB and very possibly cut into the players’ real salaries as certainly would negatively affect most or all other facets of the game in England and Wales. There is nothing for the ECB to gain by giving any more ground to the IPL and as disappointing and frustrating as that no doubt is to the players there is simply no getting around it.
The IPL issue is not going to go away, at least not as long as the BCCI remain intransigent and determined to run roughshod over everything which they do not control. But the conflict between the IPL and international schedule is their fault and not the fault of the ECB. If the PCA or individual players are unhappy about that conflict they ought to direct their complaints to the BCCI. As futile as it would be, it would make more sense than to lobby the ECB for an impossible change.
Defensive Indifference 