New ICC playing conditions

The ICC have made their annual adjustments to playing conditions and in addition to their usual futile tinkering with ODIs, there is actually some stuff of note.

The biggest is probably that the ICC have given approval for Day/Night Tests provided both sides agree to the hours and type and colour of the ball. I’m not happy with this and I’m less happy that Australia have already said they would be keen to play D/N Tests. I do understand the need to reach out to audiences with Test cricket and I can just about understand it in places with sharply declining Test attendances. But I very much hope they are never implemented in England and I would rather they weren’t in Australia either. In places where Test cricket is still strong they should stick to the traditional red ball and sunlight.

The worse change is to the DRS, however. After India blocked it’s universal application, the ICC still made a tweak to the umpire’s call margin. They have widened the umpire’s call margin for the ball hitting the pad to half a stump width, the same as the margin for the HawkEye projection. But this betrays an utter ignorance of how a margin of uncertainty actually works. The margin of uncertainty regarding where the ball hits the pad is related to the accuracy of the cameras and nothing more. There certainly is one, but it will depend on the specific technology and is almost certainly smaller than half a stump width. And it is definitely smaller than the margin of uncertainty for where the ball hits (or misses) the stumps because by nature the uncertainty increases the farther into the future one tries to predict! What ought to happen in both cases is that the on-screen graphic should just show the uncertainty as it shows the path of the ball and that should be used to determine umpire’s call. Nothing else makes sense. Using the same, completely made-up margin for both is utterly ridiculous and all it will do is increase the controversy about the results. Given the influence the BCCI had, however, that may be the point.

First match of the tour

England’s first warmup of the tour of India starts tonight (for me, in the early hours of the morning for those in the UK). A warmup match is not indicative of how the series as a whole will go, of course, one can just look at the start of England’s tour of the UAE last January. But with all the upheaval in the England team lately this first warmup still has a lot of interesting aspects and will also start to answer some questions about team selection.

As has been kicked about some in the press, England will not be facing a specialist spinner. But the India A side they face is overall a quite strong one and I am actually more interested to see how the bowlers fare. Especially of interest is how effective or otherwise Samit Patel looks. He seems to be the incumbent as a fifth bowler/sixth batsman, but as I’ve said before I don’t particularly rate him as either and I don’t think he should play unless he can so one or the other well. If England are dead set in playing a second spinner (though as I’ve said already, they shouldn’t be) then Patel should need to outperform Monty Panesar to fill that role, regardless of his batting. I would actually prefer to compare him to Graham Onions and Tim Bresnan, however. Of course there are three warmups and we don’t yet know who will play in this first one, but I expect we will start to get some indication.

With Kevin Pietersen having returned to the England squad we might also start to get a look at how well his reintegration is going. Most of the players have made positive statements to the press, but that is to be expected and it will be interesting to see if there is any telling body language. Pietersen himself could also do with some runs just to make a point upon his return. I doubt much if anything will be said if he gets a duck, and certainly it shouldn’t, but all the same a solid score will be of use to underline his return.

And we will also get to see in these first warmups how Alastair Cook fares on the field as captain in a red ball format. He has captained before, of course, when Strauss was rested from the tour of Bangladesh in early 2010, but since then Cook has taken the ODI captaincy and had more time in the Test vice-captaincy. This is also a ‘fresh start’, unlike temporarily taking the reins in Bangladesh so I am eager to see what attitude and tactics he will bring to the captaincy long-term.

Who should open for India?

With all the selection questions for England it is easy to forget that India are hardly a settled side themselves. They appear to have managed to find a full-time spinner in Ravichandran Ashwin and a decent middle order batsman in Virat Kohli, both of which will worry England somewhat, but apart from that a lot of the questions that were prominently raised during India’s 0-8 tours of England and Australia in 2011 and 2012 are still very much open ones.

One of the biggest is that of their openers, who have been struggling. Of course it is not uncommon for openers to have a slightly torrid time in the more bowler friendly conditions of England and especially with England’s attack dismantling the Indian order indiscriminately in 2011 it was hard to place any particular blame on the openers, a certain king pair notwithstanding. But the problem for India is that their established opening pair of Gambhir and Sehwag have both been struggling overall in the past year and more. Since the start of 2011 they average only thirty for the first wicket and whilst it is better at home (as one would expect) they still did not manage any century partnerships against the West Indies or New Zealand, neither of whom have overpowering attacks. And perhaps especially worrying for India is that their openers particularly struggled against the New Zealand pace attack which bears many similarities to the one England will bring to bear in Hyderabad next month.

There does not seem to be any immediate desire for change at the top of the order, though Gambhir himself deflected questions about his and Sehwag’s form by saying they still average 53 together and ‘if 53 is not good enough, I don’t know what is good enough’. It may well be that the selectors will continue to give them lenience on the basis of performances in the increasingly distant past; such behaviour is quite common in all cricket and especially it seems in the current Indian set up. But Chetan Chauhan and Sunil Gavaskar also average 53 as an opening pair (in fact a higher 53 than Gambhir and Sehwag) and they don’t seem to be in line for a recall so perhaps Gambhir should start to worry.

I have said in the past that I would not ever play Sehwag in overseas Tests and that is still very much the case. And it is starting to get to the point where I would not play him in India either as he looks increasingly fragile. The one thing that keeps both him and Gambhir in the side at least for the England series, however, (for me at least, I doubt very much that the selectors are thinking along similar lines) is that the rest of the batting order is also in a state of upheaval. Dravid and Laxman have already retired and Tendulkar could at any time. As long as Gambhir and Sehwag are not performing so poorly as to be a clear liability I would keep them around if for no other reason then to keep some measure of stability. But they both should be on very short leashes and if they continue to get worse then stability will have to take a backseat.

What can be done about India?

Yesterday it was revealed that not only were Sky making plans to cover the India v England Test series from home, the BBC had also been asked to pay an extra fee to get into the ground and now they might not cover the series at all.

Although it is good that neither Sky nor the BBC are giving in and that no one in England will be stuck with the ESPN STAR Sports commentary, not having TMS would be a tragedy. It is also a breathtakingly petty and spiteful move by the BCCI and their attitude makes one’s blood boil. It almost goes without saying now that the next time India tour England the ECB should treat the Indian broadcasters the same way or better yet, just refuse to let them in the ground full stop. This is in essence what the BCCI are doing already. I would love to see the ECB properly stand up to them and engage in a bit of tit-for-tat: sell them the rights, but then claim that the rights did not actually include entrance to the ground and close the door on them.

But this is just the latest in a much broader pattern of behaviour from the BCCI. It’s most notable in their stubborn and irrational refusal to allow the DRS to be adopted and in their imposition of their T20 schedule (both the IPL and ‘Champions’ League) on the rest of the world. The problem is not, or at least not primarily, that the BCCI have too much power. They do, but with the current structure of world cricket and the ICC it is almost inevitable that someone will have a disproportionate amount of power and influence. Right now it’s India. But the problem is that the BCCI use that power not only to secure their own interests, but to actively impose themselves on all other nations. There is no excuse whatsoever for their current behaviour with the broadcasting rights; it is simply a transparent attempt to use dodgy means to dictate terms to England.

The ECB, Sky and the BBC are not just rolling over and accepting this, which is good. As mentioned above, Sky and the BBC both refused to pay the exorbitant fees the BCCI demanded and the ECB have pulled the counties from the farcical ‘Champions’ League. But all are small matters to the BCCI and whilst they are all heartening they will have no long-term effect. Indeed, shutting the English broadcasters out of the grounds may be seen as a desirable outcome for the BCCI. The ECB need to then think more deeply about how to check the BCCI’s impositions. Obviously this is easier said than done and there is every chance that there is already discussion on this matter. The financial stakes are still much higher for England and the rest of the world than they are for India, but with India steadily becoming more dismissive of Test cricket that may start to change.

Until a better option comes along it looks like England, ideally in collaboration with the other established nations and particularly Australia, will have to simply continue to engage in tit-for-tat. And, of course, inflicting as many 0-4 series on India as possible!

No spinner in India A squad

England’s tour of India this year starts with a warmup match against the India A side on the 30th. The Indian squad for this match was revealed today and although it is a strong side, it surprisingly does not contain a spinner. This seems like a fairly straightforward ploy by India to stop England from practising against spin ahead of the Tests, but despite some strong criticism elsewhere I don’t actually have a problem with it.

England actually have three warmup matches, plus a training camp in Dubai where their annus horribilis began ten months ago. There is little chance that they will be deprived of any chance to practise against spin in that time. I expect, in fact, that they will focus on it in Dubai and then should get plenty of practice against Mumbai A and whoever their opponents are in the last warmup game (which is still to be announced). Whilst I don’t doubt that this is part of a ploy from India, I don’t see it as particularly unfair either. They are still sending out a strong side; they are not simply making a mockery of the warmup and if they think it is worth not getting a look at their own reserve spinners in exchange for England not getting to either then it makes perfect sense not to play a spinner. I actually think that they may be hurting themselves more than England with this move, however. Now their spinner will go into the Tests a bit cold and they won’t have a good idea of how well their backups will get on. In addition, the England batsmen will have a chance to get some runs under their belts and get their confidence up before facing the sterner task of the spinners in the subsequent warmups.

But even if that does not prove to be the case, I see nothing wrong with India fielding whatever side they think gives them the best chance. As long as they are not making a mockery of it by sending out a fifth Xi, and they are not, it seems perfectly fair.

England’s mystery spin problem?

ESPN Cricinfo today published the results of an ‘investigation’ revealing that England use different methods to test the legality of bowling actions than the ICC. The report suggested that this was holding back the development of England’s own ‘mystery’ spinner and that contributed to England’s struggles in the subcontinent over the winter. But that’s a bit of an exaggeration and I think that England are well advised to keep strict restrictions on bowling actions.

The main problem with the suggestion that England cannot play mystery spin because there are no county mystery spinners is that England’s problem is actually not mystery spin, it’s just spin. England badly struggled in the UAE against Saeed Ajmal with many of the batsmen struggling to pick him. But there are two things to remember: the first is that most teams have struggled against Ajmal; he was the lead wicket taker in the 2011 calendar year. The second is that England’s problems are in no way limited to just the ‘mystery’ spin of Ajmal. England also struggled badly against Abdur Rehman in the Pakistan series (19 wickets at 16.73) and then against Rangana Herath in Sri Lanka (19 wickets at 17.94). Both are slow left arm spinners and although Herath did once have a ‘mystery’ delivery it was conventional turn that did for England in Sri Lanka. In fact, the most recent ‘mystery’ spinner England played was the much hyped Sunil Narine who was immediately picked and got hit around the park. He did not even manage to fool Steven Finn. Clearly England’s problem is not then related to ‘mystery’ is is just related to spin and mystery or not they have a problem with it in the subcontinent and little trouble elsewhere.

It is also not true to suggest that England would be better off developing a mystery spinner of their own. Graeme Swann has shown how successful a true off-spinner can be and Ajantha Mendis has shown that simply having variations is not enough to be successful. It is quite right that England have not altered their testing methods to encourage the development of mystery spinners for the sake thereof; there is very little if anything to be gained and it’s certainly not worth compromising what are very good standards set by England. The relaxation of the international standards ought only ever to have applied to bowlers like Murali who physically cannot straighten their elbows; applying it to everyone makes the regulation needlessly complex and difficult to apply. I would be very uneasy if England were to field a bowler with a questionable action and questionable delivery and would also prefer that the international regulations were returned to their original state. In the meantime England should continue to strictly apply their testing methods and standards.

How many spinners do England need in India?

Any time a team tours India, or anywhere in the subcontinent, there is a the question of the balance of the side and whether or not a second spinner is needed. Generally speaking, the answer at which is arrived is ‘yes’ with the reasoning being that in the conditions so favourable to spin the usual attack must be tweaked. There is very little actually wrong with this reasoning and there are many benefits to playing two spinners. They can bowl more overs in the heat of India, they can work in tandem and they can balance attack and defence generally better than the seamers when the conditions get unhelpful.

But with England not having won in India since 1984/85, it is perhaps worth casting a critical eye over that policy. Since 1970 England have only had four spinners take ten wickets or more in India compared to ten pacemen. Seam bowlers have also taken 267 wickets in total compared to only 164 by spinners. Of course, that stat will generally favour the pacemen as there are simply more of them. But what is interesting is to look at the individual performers. Only Derek Underwood has really found success in India as a spinner. And he did fare very well, taking 54 wickets in 16 matches at an average of 26.51. But there are actually seven pace bowlers with a better average than that in India and five of them have a better wickets-to-match ratio as well. Overall, English spinners in India (since 1970) average seven runs per wicket more than their pace colleagues.

All of which is interesting and does damage the notion that spinners are necessarily a huge asset in India. But what does it mean for England’s selection on this tour? I definitely would not say it argues sternly that England must not play two spinners, but I do think it means they should not go in with a plan of playing two spinners. What they need to asses is whether Panesar/Patel are going to be better than their pace colleagues in the conditions and knowing that English spinners have a history of being less effective than pace bowlers in the subcontinent. It should not be a hard decision with respect to Patel; I cannot see him being a better choice than any of the pace bowlers. Monty is more interesting and it may come down to how many bowlers England want to play. If they stick with a four man attack then I think Steven Finn has to be selected over Panesar. But if it is a five-man attack then the question of Bresnan, Onions or Panesar is a much closer one and may be down to warmup performances.

Lancs’ winter so far

Obviously the winter is just getting started; the County Championship ‘only’ ended about a month ago. But there have still been some moves of note from Lancashire, albeit few of them really done by the club.

The first is that Ajmal Shahzad did not stay with the club and instead went to Nottinghamshire. This is not a surprise, but it is a disappointment as it only adds to Lancashire’s need for bowling in depth. Sajid Mahmood was also released so Lancashire will need to either try to bring in a bowler (which will be difficult being in Division Two) or rely on someone like Oliver Newby, who had an excellent 2012 season with the second XI, to step up and be the full time third seamer. I would imagine that it will be the latter due to both the practical considerations of luring a bowler to a D2 side and the opportunity to see how someone like Newby gets on in the easier environment of the second tier.

Gary Keedy also left the club, going to Surrey. Whilst it is sad to see such a long time servant of the club go, it is certainly the best move for Keedy and probably the best move for Lancashire as well. Keedy did not get a lot of playing time this season because of the emergence of Simon Kerrigan and the scarcity of wickets on which two spinners could be played. It is likely that the same situation would have arisen again next year so it is hard to blame Keedy for wanting to leave. He will be missed, especially with regard to the tutelage he could give to Kerrigan, but with Stephen Parry also having a good season for the seconds it is at least not a major blow.

The good news, however, is that Glen Chapple will stay on as captain for another year. His ability to lead from the front has been invaluable and he was the only bowler to consistently perform last season. His steady hand at the tiller will give Lancashire a huge leg up on promotion next season.

New LVCC format

The ECB also announced today the revised format for County cricket from 2014 onward. It is actually a very good revision; sanity prevailed and the ECB scrapped the notion of a 14-match schedule and they have also got rid of the T20 block and changed the CB40 to the CB50 and added quarter-finals.

The most important decision was about the LV=CC and the ECB not only kept the current form intact, but they also set the schedule so that the first 14 matches start on Sunday. The ECB press release did not say why only the first 14 rounds (though my guess is that it’s because the T20 competition will be over after that) or on what day they will start in September instead. It’s a nice arrangement though. There will still be weekend cricket and there will be a regular schedule to go with it.

The CB40 is not only to become the CB50, it will also have rules exactly matching those of international cricket. Although I do prefer the forty over version as a fan, from the standpoint of the well-being of English cricket I think this is an overall good thing. Also good is that there will be a quarter-final round this year which has very much been lacking in the past. There will be eight group matches per side, so my guess is that Scotland and Holland will continue playing and there will be four groups of five.

The T20 competition is possibly the oddest one. Getting rid of the T20 block was a great idea for the spectators wanting to attend and it does not break up the LV=CC scheduling anymore which is a distinct improvment. It will be 14 matches though, which is too many (I thought the ten of this year worked very well) and I don’t know how that will work as far as the groups go. I suspect it will mean an unbalanced schedule of the type that was proposed for the LV=CC, but that would be flawed for the same reasons.

I’m quite happy with the revisions overall and I think they will make for an improved fixture list from 2014 onwards.

Pietersen to return

In the first of two bits of cricket news to come out today, it was revealed that Kevin Pietersen had completed his reintegration process and had been added to the squad to tour India. I said the other day that this was something the ECB needed to get sorted as soon as possible and fortunately they have done just that. Apparently all the reintegration that was needed was for him to talk to Flower, Cook and a few senior members of the side.

Despite my misgivings over Pietersen’s actions and his poor results in the subcontinent I do think this is a good thing. The matter can now be laid to rest and hopefully Pietersen will have learnt to think a bit before he speaks and acts. The ECB appear to have got all they wanted out of the situation with Pietersen dropping his demands to play in the full IPL and agreeing to play both forms of pyjama cricket and it cannot be argued that they did so in a way which hurt the team as Pietersen only missed one Test. They have clearly acted in the best interests of English cricket in the long term and should be applauded for their success.

Pietersen will presumably then be in the playing XI for the first Test, so I expect it will be back to him at four with Bell at five and I would hope Prior at six. With Bell likely to miss the second Test that would give an opportunity to one of the younger players in the squad as well.