Category: Cricket

Poor preparation

With now exactly two weeks before the start of the abbreviated series against South Africa, I have been thinking about scheduling again. Obviously I am cross and have been for some time that the series is only three matches. Even without questioning the ECB’s rationale in playing five ODIs against Australia (though it is a very foolish rationale) the scheduling is poor.

That the series against South Africa is too short is not in doubt. It is the number one side in the world playing the number two side with the winner getting the top spot. To play it only over three matches is lunacy; it ought to be at least four. What is maddening is that the schedule could have easily accommodated a full length Test series and the ECB’s desired ODIs. Even if there were no way to squeeze in seven Tests and 13 ODIs (and the only reason that there is not is because of the World T20 and even then it’s close) then the arrangement could have and should have been different. For one thing, there was no need for a third Test against the West Indies. Whilst no one could have predicted so far ahead of time that it would have been a washout anyway, almost everyone managed to predict that it was going to be a dead rubber. I am no fan of two Test series, but in this case it would have been very much the lesser of two evils. A far better option, however, would have been to simply reduce the number of ODIs being played against South Africa and the West Indies. We are playing a combined eight matches against them, it would have been very easy to cut out three and play a usual seven Test/ten ODI summer.

Those solutions assume we have to play those five ODIs against Australia this summer for the ECB to accomplish its goal of preparing England for the World Cup, but that is not even true. These ODIs are actually supposed to be more for Australia’s benefit than England’s; it is allowing them to prepare for the Champions Trophy in reciprocation for England playing in Australia ahead of the World Cup. But the Champions Trophy is next year and we are playing the normal Ashes related ODIs against Australia then anyway. Surely Australia would prepare better by simply having those ODIs moved in front of the Champions Trophy, just as England’s matches in Oz will immediately precede the World Cup. This seems like a solution that would not only allow us to play four (or five) Tests against South Africa like we ought to, but also to allow the ECB to get their desired pre-World Cup preparation and actually improve Australia’s pre-Champions Trophy preparation.

It is, of course, a bit late to be complaining about fixtures that were set over a year ago, but the reason I bring it up is because I think England may not only have robbed the fans of a good series, but also put themselves at a bit of a disadvantage by playing so much white ball cricket ahead of an important Test series. England will go into the first Test against South Africa with many of their players having played seven limited overs matches and no significant red ball cricket since the end of the second Test. Strauss at least will play a bit for Somerset and I am hoping Jimmy and KP (both of whom are missing some or all of the series against Oz) will play in the Surrey v Lancashire match at Guildford the week before the Test series starts, though I am not optimistic. It probably won’t be a massive problem for England, but it is a bit troubling especially given how good at preparation Flower and Strauss usually are. It is worth remembering that when England were playing warmup matches before the 2010/11 Ashes, Australia were playing ODIs against Sri Lanka. This was not the difference in the series, England were always going to be far too good for Australia, but it was another advantage given to England. With the series against South Africa looking like it may be a very close one and every difference magnified due to the shortness of the series, this is certainly an area where England should have done better.

An improvement for T20s

This is not a rant about T20; as I believe I have said before I do not mind the format per se but rather some (indeed many) of its applications. So my suggestion for improving it does not involve scrapping it entirely or anything radical such as that. It instead deals with the problem of rain shortened matches such as the one we saw today between Nottinghamshire and Lancashire. Lancs batted for twenty overs as set Notts 179 to win. The rains came with Notts 7-0 after one over and left them a D/L target of 49 off five overs which they chased comfortably. The obvious problem was that the D/L revised target was quite low. Notts had all of their wickets in hand and could go for it. One big over against Arafat was enough to all but end the match as a contest. However, I think to blame D/L misses a deeper and more important point.

The D/L discrepancy was a problem, but I actually think it is a very minor one. Theoretically the system can be tweaked (and I believe that it is tweaked as new data comes in), but I do not think there is any adjustment that could have helped in this situation. No matter what total is set over five overs it will not have the same dynamic of a full chase and more importantly I don’t think there is any ‘fair’ way to do it. Only playing five overs means two things: that wickets are entirely irrelevant, run rate is all that matters, and that the required rate will almost always jump to either unobtainable heights or drop so low that it becomes easy. In effect then it is a one over contest. Today, Notts got 18 off a single over to render the required rate miniscule. The low target and wickets in hand made it easier for them to do that then the corollary of Lancs bowling a very tight over, but if Lancs had done so it would have come close to ending the match in their favour as well. And that would apply even if the D/L target had been higher; it would have just made it easier for Lancs to have a good over than Notts. Either way though it isn’t a proper contest. Five overs is simply too few.

The best way to improve T20s then is not to tweak D/L (though I still think that should happen, it just isn’t the most important thing to do) but to increase the minimum number of overs for matches interrupted halfway by rain and more flexibility in shortening matches before the rain starts. Most people suspected ahead of time that today’s match would be rain-affected and if they had decided ahead of time to play ten, or even five, overs a side instead of Lancs getting a full twenty and Notts getting five it would have been a perfectly fair contest. In situations where that is not feasible, however, the minimum number of overs has to be increased. If start times are brought forward and cutoff times moved back (as well as being made more flexible) I believe this can be done without a considerable increase in the number of matches without a result. Even if there is some increase, however, I think the majority of fans will understand the logic though I concede that is speculation. Certainly there should be some sort of effort to get the most overs in as possible. The current system does not produce a proper contest.

T20 format and situation

We’re just past the summer solstice and that means that in England the county season has shifted entirely to the group stage of the Friends Life T20. I have not been following it as closely as the championship, but the timing does make it substantially easier for me and I have kept an eye on it. The structure is much different this year with the effect that it is shorter. Instead of each team playing sixteen matches each team only plays ten and as a result they are all much more meaningful. There is a strong incentive to finish in the top two of the group and a fairly strong one to finish at the top and there is not a lot of room for error. It is early yet, but I think the ECB have hit upon a successful format. Which is why they are trying to change it for next year, of course.

The current table in the North Group sees the Red Rose in third following a disappointing loss away in the Roses match. Yorkshire actually top the table, but Lancashire are still very much in the hunt. They would actually qualify for the quarter-finals as one of the second best third place sides right now and have a match in hand against most of the other sides in the North Group. Of four matches left to play, two stand out: the home Roses clash against top of the table Yorkshire is the most obvious but there is also the trip to Trent Bridge to play second placed Notts. Winning both of those would give Lancs some leeway against Derbyshire and Durham. As I said above though: every match is important in this new tournament format and Lancs will be very keen to avoid another slip up against Derbyshire. Lancs could easily be two points better off and in a fairly comfortable position were it not for an early defeat to Derbyshire in a match they ought to have won comfortably and that could yet cost them.

I think that Lancashire have played very well so far in the T20. They had just hit a good run of form in the LV=CC before the break and their batting in particular has been incredible. Lancashire’s run rate in the competition so far is over 8.5 an over; that works out to 170 per innings. That will win most matches and so far it has done. A horror over by Mahmood cost them early though and they were outplayed by Yorkshire (and I so hate typing that, even in a T20). Those are the only two losses so far, however. I think we can win at least three of the remaining matches, though I am not sure how we will do against Notts. We have not yet played them and they look fairly good. All things considered then, I think Lancs will make it to the quarter-finals and although it’s a crapshoot from there we can have a go at improving on last year’s result.

2012 Cowdrey Lecture

Tony Greig was invited to give this year’s MCC Cowdrey Lecture on the spirit of cricket. It appeared slightly an odd choice; the name Greig is hardly synonymous with ‘spirit of cricket’. With his reputation and the rather tough act he had to follow in Sangakkara last year it was always going to be a bit tricky for him, one felt. Still, I felt that he acquitted himself as well as could be expected. I am no fan of Greig, in fact I think there are few worse commentators in the world, but he did give an interesting and mostly intelligent speech.

It did not go down well in all quarters, however. Specifically it was very poorly received in India where it was interpreted as an attack on them. This is not unfair; the main theme of his lecture was to call for greater responsibility from the BCCI. However, the only thing he said about India that was factually incorrect was when he conflated the Indian broadcaster, ESPNStar Sports, with the board itself. In fact, I thought he was rather generous overall, making sure he gave credit to India where it was due and in one case where I thought it was not due. Looking through the #CowdreyLecture hashtag on Twitter during the speech, the biggest thing I noticed (apart from the predictable and laughable accusation of jealousy) was that none of the complaints addressed what he actually said about India. Most of those criticising him were complaining that he was just attacking India as though that was a legitimate counter. It did not seem to cross their mind that perhaps he had a reason to do so, that perhaps India were actually in the wrong. There was also the slightly more legitimate accusation of hypocrisy given Greig’s involvement in World Series Cricket and continued involvement with Channel Nine. Whilst not unreasonable on the face of it, this is still a tu quoque logical fallacy. Greig is not a paragon of virtue; he has erred with respect to the spirit of cricket before. But, and this is important, that does not invalidate what were statements of fact about India.

Those statements of fact centred on India’s current dominance of the world game through it’s finances and it’s apparent indifference to Test cricket. No sane person could deny that India control the world game right now and I very much doubt any sane person would deny that they do so with only their own best interests in mind. At almost exactly the same time as Greig was giving his lecture, the BCCI managed to quash without a vote a recommendation by the ICC to make the DRS universal. Every board save India use the DRS. It’s accuracy has been independently verified and it has clearly been shown to reduce incorrect decisions. And yet India’s knee-jerk Luddism and privileged position on the ICC mean that it can unilaterally opt out. That is but one stark example of the BCCI being able to do as they please without any regard to the rest of the world. Arguably the biggest, however, is the IPL. The BCCI take no notice of the international calendar when scheduling it and have no qualms about poaching players from national sides for their own profit. The excuse usually given, that ten per cent of the contract goes to the home board, is entirely spurious: it still undermines and devalues all international cricket played during that time. (In any case, the boards only get that money if the player signed a contract with them. Thus the West Indies got nothing when Gayle was absent and the same would apply to any player who declined to sign a contract.) Greig was absolutely right to take the BCCI to task over this because it is not only a great threat to the game it is one that could be solved. The BCCI’s actions are not cricket in the most literal sense. The entire game would be better off if they would play.

This is not to say that Greig’s speech was perfect, far from it. He at one point advocated the use of lie detectors to root out corruption despite their being laughably inaccurate. He said that he expected it would only be a burden on a handful of players, but his expectations fly in the face of reality. He also praised India for touring smaller nations and thus giving them a significant cash boon. It is true that they do so, sometimes, but they are required to under the Future Tours Programme and in fact have not played Pakistan in five years now. They have also never invited Bangladesh to tour and overall do less to help the smaller nations than most! The threat of their contravening the FTP and refusing to play smaller nations is also what allows them to form a voting bloc in the ICC.

His proposed solutions also left a bit to be desired. He stated, quite correctly, that no domestic event should take scheduling preference over international matches. This needed to be said, despite the fact that it ought to be self evident. England do not get to try to poach players from international matches for the County Championship. No one has ever discussed putting an LVCC window in the international calendar. Greig did point out, however, that this is area for potential compromise. In exchange for shortening the tournament and giving smaller nations a greater financial stake the international boards could agree to leave a window for the IPL. Given that the BCCI have expressed no desire for a window, however, this seems unlikely. He also wants a northern hemisphere franchise based T20 with English, Irish and West Indian teams competing. I have heard other calls for an English franchise league, but there is no reason to believe that this would be a good thing. Given that England are number one in the world in T20s and current T20 world champions, there is absolutely no reason to tinker with the current model.

Tony Greig is not a man I admire. He is not a man I even like; when I saw that he would be giving the lecture my first thought was to try to guess what bit of authentic memorabilia he would be trying to hawk. But as the cliché goes even a broken clock is right twice a day (assuming one has an analogue clock) and so too was Greig spot on in his comments about India. The BCCI’s selfish actions are not cricket and if they are allowed to continue in this manner the game in twenty years will be a poorer one than it is today.

England v India preview

The Indian women’s team are in England this summer for two T20s and five ODIs. They return having played in the quadrangular series last season and fared quite poorly then. For England, it will be the first series since the retirement of Isa Guha. To say that the smart money in this series is on England would be an understatement. More correct would be to say that the sane money is on an England side who won all ten completed T20s they have played since the start of last summer and nine out of ten ODIs.

England have had the better results for the very simple reason that they have had the better players. If one makes a direct comparison of players, all the lists are dominated by Englishwomen. In the T20s, the two best averages and strike rates over the past twelve months belong to Sarah Taylor and the captain Charlotte Edwards. Looking farther back, over the past two years, India do not have a single batsman who averages over 25, has a strike rate over fifty and has scored at least a hundred runs. England have three. India have an excellent T20 bowler in Jhulan Goswami, but over the past twelve months she has been second best to Anya Shrubsole in wickets per match, average and economy. England also have a much better attack overall; Goswami has not been well supported by her colleagues.

The comparison of ODI statistics is even more dramatic. Each side has played ten ODIs in the past twelve months in which time England have had five centurions and India none. England have also had nine scores between fifty and a hundred to India’s eight. Most damningly, of batsmen who have scored at least 100 runs total there are three Englishwomen who average over fifty, but the top Indian average is a mere 33. As in the T20 stats, India are able to claw a little bit back in the bowling department. England still have a clear advantage, however, especially with Katherine Brunt returning after being rested for the tour to New Zealand.

This should be a fairly straightforward victory for England. They are literally a professional side and are on home soil. On paper at least, India are simply outclassed. Given the superior backing that the England side have, it is probably unfair to expect too much from India. Unfortunately there will be no Tests; those seem to be reserved for the Ashes now. (It is probably just as well for India, however, seeing how their men’s side did in England last summer!) In the seven matches that will be played, I expect England to win both T20s and at least four of the five ODIs. There is no reason why they cannot pull off a whitewash, but all of the limited overs formats can get a bit unpredictable.

Squad rotation

With England winning the first two ODIs fairly effortlessly, the main talking point ahead of the third has been that like in the Tests England are resting important members of the squad for the dead rubber. In the Test series I was very much against this. Whilst it was a lovely opportunity for Finn and Onions, England were a clearly reduced side and would have had a tough time had the rain not ruined all. (I will note for the sake of fairness that the match was already all but gone when the decision was made to rest Broad.) I am not nearly as opposed in this case, however, and would actually rest players a bit more.

One of the main reasons to oppose rotation in Test matches is that there are no unimportant Tests. (There are other good reasons as well, but that is one of the main ones.) This is not the case in ODIs however and in fact I am rather sympathetic to the argument that there are no important ODIs. A Test is the highest form of the game and is remembered very differently to an ODI. The success or otherwise of a tour is marked by Test results; last summer there would have been a very real difference between whitewashing India and only winning 3-0 or 3-1. But England’s win in the subsequent ODI series made no difference and for me at least was forgot almost before it was over. This is partly due to the format itself and partly due to the World Cup stripping the bilateral series of meaning. (After all, what does it matter if you lose every bilateral series if you win the World Cup?) Every team should certainly do everything they can to win every Test, but it is much harder to say that of ODIs.

Another reason for resting ODI players is that there are so many more ODIs than Tests. (Which is it’s own problem, of course.) This summer England will play six Tests and 13 ODIs. Over the winter it will be a more reasonable seven Tests and ten ODIs, before having to play a Mickey Mouse tournament at home next summer in addition to the bilateral ODIs. Few if any of those matches will have any real meaning and I actually think it would be a very bad idea to try to play the same, or nearly the same, XI in all of them. There is no reason to risk the players getting an injury. If it is used periodically, ie: not just for dead rubbers, it seems like the most logical approach.

The main argument against resting players is that it does not seem fair on the playing public to get a reduced XI. This is a reasonable concern, I think. I am not advocating playing a second XI, however, nor do I think Flower and Cook ever would do so. To play a different seam attack or a few young batsmen is not a dramatic blow to England’s chances of winning, especially if the rotation is done consistently and constantly. The shorter format is random enough anyway that there is no reason to suspect that spectators would get a reduced performance. I also think that the spectators are smart enough to understand the logic of rotation and few if any would be going to see just one player. If even football fans can do this then I am sure cricket fans can.

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.

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…