LV=CC week one roundup

In a pretty good start to the County Championship, six of the seven round one matches had positive results with only Kent’s trip to Headingley ending in a draw. The full results were:
Nottinghamshire beat Worcestershire by 92 runs
Somerset beat Middlesex by six wickets
Surrey beat Sussex by 86 runs
Derbyshire beat Northamptonshire by 202 runs
Essex beat Gloucestershire by an innings and 38 runs
Leicestershire beat Glamorgan by 52 runs
Yorkshire drew with Kent

I mostly listened to the Kent match this weekend (in the hope that the White Rose would lose) so I’m hoping that it is not a sign of things to come as I turn my attention to Lancashire from next week.

The Notts and Leics matches were similar, both times the home side lost the toss and were put into bat (which actually happened in six of the seven matches, Kent winning the toss and batting being the only exception). And in both matches they collapsed dramatically. In Leicester the hosts lost wickets to the first two balls of the season and were 1-3 at one point with each of their top three making ducks. The fact that they made it to 249 all out was a dramatic recovery then. Notts did not start out quite as badly, but they did not recover as well either and succumbed to 118 all out via 34-5. Both sides were able to instigate collapses in their opponents though, Glamorgan were at one point 34-7 en route to 124 all out and Worcestershire simply lost wickets at regular intervals in getting a first innings lead of 12. This is where the matches diverged sharply: Notts proceeded to bat Worcs out of the match with 403, whilst Leics collapsed to 110 all out. Both were enough, however.

Whilst I did not get to watch Yorkshire lose (I would have been pretty surprised if I had) I did get to see Kent rack up 537-9 against them before declaring. Amazingly, that included a ninth wicket stand of 157 after Kent had been 374-8. A century by Jonny Bairstow was not quite enough for Yorkshire to avoid the follow-on (though probably gives him an early lead in the race for number six), but an opening stand of 115 in the second innings mostly ended any hopes of a positive result in that match.

If I had to pick one match that I thought would be drawn, I would have guessed Somerset v Middlesex, after the start was badly delayed by rain. Somerset never let Middlesex build a big partnership in the first innings, though, and then their strong batting order got them a lead of 104. George Dockrell took 6-27 to give Somerset an easy target of 72 with plenty of time. They lost four wickets en route, but made it pretty easily in the end.

Surrey did not get much of a contribution from their batsmen, only three went past fifty in both innings, but a very good group performance from their bowlers made sure it was enough. Sussex were bowled out for 196 in the first innings and the only bright spot as they tried to chase 342 was 108 by Luke Wells. Once again Surrey’s bowlers kept them in check and shared the wickets around and Sussex never really looked like getting the runs.

Derbyshire’s match at the county ground against Northants was very close after the first innings. Derbyshire lead by 22 at that point on the back of 110 by Dan Redfern and 83 by Ross Whiteley. The rest of the batsmen contributed only 87 between them. The second innings was completely different, however. A Martin Guptill 137 anchored a score of 314-3 from Derbyshire and although Northants managed to bat until late on day four, they were bowled out for 134.

The most one sided match of the first round was at Chelmsford. Essex were put into bat and responded by scoring 364. One hundred thirty of those were from opener Billy Godleman and Gloucestershire simply had no response. They collapsed to 180 all out and were asked to follow-on. Second time around Graham Napier took 5-58 as Gloucestershire could only make 146 and succumbed to an innings defeat.

Four sides are still yet to play, but so far Somerset have the early lead in Division One with 22 points from their first match, whilst Essex lead the second tier with 23 points.

England win by eight wickets!

It’s been a disappointing winter, but England have finished it on a high. Chasing 94 to win at an absolute canter with KP hitting the winning runs with a six of none other than Dilshan (who conceded 16 to that man off four balls in the final over). I could not have asked for any more from the end of the match, really. It means that England cling onto the number one Test ranking still and will have a bit of confidence going into India this winter. It was straightforward in the end. Sri Lanka never developed a really threatening partnership and only the early wicket of Strauss threatened to disrupt England’s chase. KP took the bowling by the scruff of the neck again, however, and England ended up chasing the target in just 19.4 overs. KP got a deserved Man of the Match and almost did enough to back up his statements about not having a problem against left-arm spinners. Almost.

For now though, attention can shift in the short-term for the County Championship, and the battle therein for the number six spot in the English batting order, and the Test series in the West Indies as a good build up to their tour of England in a couple of months. Both promise to be fascinating, but I think the battle for number six will be more so. Samit Patel acquitted himself well in the second Test, but always looked like a horse for a course and it seems unlikely that he is in England’s plans for the summer. That would mean back to Bopara, back to Morgan, Bresnan or a Lions player. Simple. Morgan and Bopara should be discounted by the selectors, however. The former decided to play in the IPL rather than bat himself back into form for Middlesex and Bopara is Bopara. Bresnan seems unlikely as a six/seven batsman and given the recent preferences of the selectors will probably be the third seamer, batting at eight, or not play at all. Which would leave a Lions player. Which one will probably be down to LVCC performances, though it is interesting that James Taylor was not included in the England Performance Squad.

There is also a smaller battle to be had now for the third seamer. Bresnan would appear to be the first choice, as almost a proper all-rounder, but Finn seemed to outbowl him in the final Test. As I said above, I don’t think Bresnan will play as a sixth bat/fourth seamer (though I think he is well-qualified to do so). Once again, performances in the LVCC might make the difference, but right now I think Finn would get the nod.

Those are all things on which to keep an eye over the next six weeks. For now though, time to celebrate a much-awaited victory and the retention of the number one spot!

Colombo, day four

England are well placed to win tomorrow and they mostly have one man for whom to thank for that: Graeme Swann. He struck twice in the penultimate over to not only break a stubborn partnership between Samaraweera and Jayawardene, but also sending the nightwatchman back to the hutch two balls later. England might have fancied their chances of winning today, but will probably be happy with having Sri Lanka effectively 33-6 at stumps. Mahela Jayawardene is still in though and we already know just how troublesome he can make batting with the tail.

They day may have looked a bit dull on paper, 214-6, but in practice it was anything but. Prasad started the day by looking less like a nightwatchman and more like a replacement opener. He had a few lives, but comfortably outlasted his partner. The first wicket belatedly brought Dishonourable Dilshan to the crease and the England fieldsmen wasted no time in letting them know exactly what they thought of his antics yesterday. Dilshan responded by suggesting to the umpire that Cook had tread on the protected part of the wicket. (He had actually extended himself to stride over it.) It was all quite feisty for a while; the only thing it missed was KP bowling to Dilshan, which I would have loved to see. It did settle down, at least until Dilshan was dismissed. He got a good ball from Jimmy which he edged into his pads and from there into the hands of Strauss at slip. He immediately reviewed and the only evidence either way was a small red mark appearing on the bat as the ball went by. Given the technology, it was not going to get any clearer than that: with nothing to suggest that the umpire was wrong and a bit to suggest that he was right, Dilshan stayed out. He then threw a bit of a tantrum, but that was to be expected. The Sri Lankans both in the booth and in the dressing room proceeded to then display a complete ignorance of how the DRS actually worked. Michael Atherton had to explain it in the booth to an unhappy Sanath Jayasuria and the Sri Lankan management later expressed confusion about why Dilshan did not get the benefit of the doubt.

It is remarkable just how much gamesmanship Sri Lanka have managed to squeeze into the Test as they try to cling on to the series. It really is quite ugly. They have been repeatedly crossing the wicket when celebrating dismissals and when taking drinks, Samaraweera stood his ground in the first innings, the entire team went into a strop when they ran out of referrals and then there is Dilshan. His antics bowling to KP, appealing excessively (for which he was fined), hiding behind a nightwatchman and then the entire scenario of his dismissal are disgraceful and hopefully he parts with a bit more than just the ten per cent of his match fee he has already lost. I know most of the world wants to see England lose and slip off the number one place, but I think that those who do should also ask themselves if they really want to encourage this sort of behaviour from Sri Lanka.

Whilst all that was going on, it must be pointed out that Sangakkara has now edged the ball four times in this series and has walked straight off every single time. Most of them were pretty obvious, yes, but given the way the rest of his team were behaving I think he deserves praise for playing the game properly. It is too bad that he is no longer the captain.

At the end of the day, England are probably only a couple of early wickets away from levelling the series. Both Jayawardenes and Angelo Mathews are not yet out and can score runs, but if England can pick up where they left off (and they still have a new-ish ball) they will be well set. Sri Lanka have no choice but to score slowly on this pitch to try to keep their last wickets in hand, and as a consequence it will probably not be until past tea interval that the match is completely safe. If they can last almost that long though, there could be a scenario in which England have to chase about 160 in forty overs or so. It would be interesting to see how they would go about that, but it is probably confined to the realm of fantasy. Sri Lanka have batsmen left who could do that, but most teams would still rather be in England’s position.

West Indies v Australia preview

Almost lost in the glare of the start of the County Championship (it was a very exciting first day) is the three Test series in the Caribbean between the West Indies and Australia. It should be interesting; the tour was finally scheduled properly ,ODIs first, and the West Indies emerged with a very creditable 2-2 draw. It sets things up well for the Test series, the West Indies looked much better than I think most were expecting and Australia are still in a state of flux.

The rest of this post is now on The Armchair Selector! I’ve explained why here, but if you already know or don’t care then continue reading…

Colombo, day three

A marvellous day for England. I said last night that Sri Lanka had to be worried about the implications of England’s batting clicking and we did exactly that today. KP was fantastic, absolutely dominating the Sri Lankan bowlers and showing how good he really can be. It must be said, he benefited from the top order batting well. Strauss was out last might, but Cook and Trott batted well into the morning today and England were well set by the time KP came to the middle. Batting with the pressure off and Sri Lanka already starting to fray around the edges he set about putting his boot on their throat and by the time the lunch interval came around Sri Lanka were starting to lose it in the field. They wasted both of their reviews in rapid succession, the second one a horrible referral. They then started to fire the ball around and conceded quite a few overthrows before the interval.

The big controversy of the day came with KP on 98*. He was looking imperious and had recently hit a switch-hit for four. He then set up to do so again and Dilshan pulled out. This happened twice and after Dilshan had a word with the umpires they decided to warn KP for time wasting! Whilst they did not say that KP could not play the shot, they did give him an official warning for setting himself before the bowler was in his delivery stride. As far as it goes, that is correct: all though the MCC ruled that the shot was legal, the ICC said that in international cricket the hands must not be reversed before the bowler enters his stride. The problem here was that the replay clearly showed that KP had switched his hands after the bowler had entered his stride and was thus well within his rights to do what he did. In fact, the second time KP did not even get around to switch his hands before Dilshan pulled out. The player who was wasting time was Dilshan. The entire Sri Lankan team was in a strop by this point and this was a blatant attempt at gamesmanship and sad to say, it worked. The umpires should have stood up to it, however, and it was a very, very spineless effort by them to cave in. Luckily KP was untroubled by this and brought up his hundred with a reverse sweep anyway. But it was absolutely appalling behaviour from both Sri Lanka and very poor from the umpires. Hopefully England will lodge a firm complaint about this, but in the meantime I hope Jimmy, Finn and Bres ping a few off Dilshan’s nose tomorrow. Though if he needs treatment, the umpire will probably warn England for time wasting.

Apart from that, it was a very good day for England. Four hundred and sixty all out represents a first innings lead of 185 and Sri Lanka will do well just to make England bat again. England were bowled out with one over left in the day, but Dishonourable Dilshan did not even go out to face the music, instead sending out Prasad as a nightwatchman. He survived and Sri Lanka are 4-0 overnight. There was not only turn, but very uneven bounce on display as England batted and all four of England’s main bowlers will surely be very eager to have a go tomorrow. Whilst England will probably bat again, I do not expect the match to last into a fifth day.

Colombo, day two

This was the day for which we have waited all winter. England dominated it pretty much from the word go and in another situation would probably be well on top. The conditions required scoring slower than usual, which England duly did. It means that they are not as well positioned as they might have been if they were at home, but are as well placed as they could ask to be here.

England started the day still needing four wickets and went after them patiently. It meant that I started to hear some hand-wringing as half an hour elapsed with no wickets, but it always looked like a case where one wold bring four and that is exactly what happened. The batsmen eventually tried to break the shackles and Strauss had the men set perfectly for it. His clever captaincy was mostly ignored, or course. Swann ended up with four wickets having bowled very well to get them. Jimmy ended up stuck on just the three he got yesterday morning, though he deserved rather more. It’s something that I need to look up, but it seems that Jimmy fairly often takes a few top-order wickets but only finishes with three or four as someone else cleans up the tail. Nothing wrong with that, of course, as long as the wickets are taken.

The highlight of the day was that England finally remembered how to bat. It won’t make the highlight reel because this was old-fashioned batting. Strauss and Cook kept out the good ones and tried to rotate the strike off worse ones. The run rate was only two and a bit per over, but that was what England needed. The runs did come, Strauss and Cook looked progressively more and more comfortable and Sri Lanka looked like they did not quite no what to do. The entire afternoon session passed without a wicket falling. It was precisely what England needed to do and even when Strauss departed in the last hour for a very well played 61, Trott picked up right where he left off. England finished on 154-1, trailing by only 121.

There is still a lot to do, of course. England are supremely well placed, but another collapse could still undo all that. We saw that happen in the first innings at Abu Dhabi, though the big partnership there was for the second wicket. If Cook and Trott can go the way they did there, after a big first wicket stand this time, then KP might not even come in until the scores are almost level. A collapse then might be too late for Sri Lanka, so they know that they have to get an early wicket tomorrow. It sounds surprising after all that has happened this winter, but right now the only one of the top five not to have scored some runs is KP. Even if he and Patel fail, England have enough lower order batting (Prior, Bresnan, Swann) to get a big lead if they’re only a few behind when Bell comes in. England have to go for big runs. It is very optimistic, but until there is a collapse England have to try to only bat once. They cannot try to up the rate, however, keep going as they are and accumulate. The plan will be to grind out the runs and declare around 500 before tea on the fourth day. Even if there is a bit of a collapse, if they stay sensible 400 is still possible. Or England could lose three wickets before lunch tomorrow and have to rely on Swann to get the lead up to fifty. That’s still possible too.

Colombo, day one

This was England’s day. It did not get off to a good start, Strauss lost the toss for the fourth consecutive time and Sri Lanka went in to bat. Strauss’ inability to correctly predict the path of a coin remains the number one reason why he should be sacked.

After that, however, it was eerily similar to the Galle Test, but a bit better for England this time. Once again the first three wickets fell cheaply, this time all to Jimmy Anderson. And once again Jayawardene scored an excellent century as he and Samaraweera consolidated, but this time England managed to get Jayawardene out. Swann trapped him lbw in the 80th over, plus Finn got Prasana Jayawardene before stumps and England restricted Sri Lanka’s scoring rate all day. England might have had loftier hopes after reducing Sri Lanka to 30-3, but 238-6 at stumps is still a good position after losing the toss. With Prasana out, Angelo Mathews is the last recognised batsman and England will be able to target him with a newish ball tomorrow morning.

Credit must go to James Anderson again. He bowled a fantastic spell with the new ball yet again and once again dismissed Kumar Sangakkara first ball. He did not get the hat trick, but he did get Thirimanne not long after. Those three wickets were not just reward for his efforts though. He also bowled one of the best spells one will ever see with a 60 over old ball, getting it to reverse both ways and comfortably beating the batsman time and time again. How he did not get a wicket is beyond me, he appeared to have it on a string. The consistency with which Jimmy has bowled over the past two years is incredible and he seems to be getting better. I don’t think there is any bowler in the world right now, Steyn included, who could have bowled the way Jimmy did today and he has performing at that level on very unhelpful pitches all winter. In the past two years now he has taken 101 wickets in 22 Tests (4.6 wk/Test) at an average of 22.83 and ten of those have been in unhelpful conditions. It’s an incredible return and I think Jimmy deserves at least equal mention with Steyn right now.

There was also some controversy when Samaraweera appeared to glove a ball from Finn to short leg on 36. England were convinced that it was out, but the umpire did not give it and it stayed with his call on review. There were two clear noises on the replay, however, and there was just as much evidence that he had hit it as the incident with Cook in the last Test. This time it was not overturned, however and I think England can justifiably feel hard done by. It was a poor decision on-field and brutally inconsistent by the third umpire. I will also bring up the point I did with Cook’s dismissal: the batsman should have walked. He clearly hit it and standing his ground was an act of deliberate dishonesty. For me it is in the same league as claiming a low catch and it should come under similar criticism. For Samaraweera and Cook to stay at the crease was disgraceful. Cook at least was given out but the only bit of justice given to Samaraweera was a nasty blow to the head two overs later. If he’d walked he would have avoided that.

The match is well set up for tomorrow’s play, England took a pair of important late wickets and need to make the new ball count again tomorrow morning. The big wicket is now that of Mathews, he has not played cricket for a while due to injury and it will be interesting to see how he starts tomorrow. If Jimmy and Finn can be as on-the-money as they were today, they have an opportunity to put England in a great position. After that, it will all be down to the batsmen again.

Colombo preview

England go into the final Test of the winter with everything to play for. Four losses from four Tests and now they must win to maintain the number one Test spot and save even the smallest amount of face. The key for England is very, very simple: the batting, so good from their second innings at Brisbane through their only innings at the Oval, must rediscover something approximating their form from that period. Despite slipping a bit near the end of the last Test, the fact is that the bowling unit have had as much or more success this winter as at any time in the past six years. They are not the problem and in fact their success in all conditions must be the envy of all other nations. The level of success they have had with the ball means that the batsmen need to perform only a little bit better and England will have a great chance of levelling the series.

Sri Lanka have a lot for which to play as well though. They have not won a series since beating New Zealand at home in 2009 and this would be a major scalp for them. They will be a motivated side and I expect that their middle order will be desperate to cling on to their wickets in the way that only Jayawardene did in the first Test. If they can thwart England’s bowlers and get just one properly big total in the match, England will have very little chance of getting the victory that we need. That will not be an easy feat for Sri Lanka though, even if the pitch is flat. Even without Stuart Broad, England’s attack have proved that they can take wickets in all conditions against all opponents.

The toss will be important again. Given England’s habit of collapsing at the merest hint of turn, batting last could be disastrous, even on a road. Similarly, we have already seen how much Sri Lanka benefited in the first Test from even a fairly modest first innings total. If Strauss can finally find the luck with the coin that has eluded him for the last three Tests, it should be game on. England’s batsmen did not look in bad touch in the last Test; nearly all of them made at least a start with the bat. If, on the first day on a flat pitch, they can finally be persuaded to dig in like Trott, the runs are there. A big score in the first innings and England can boss the game like they did so often last year. Sri Lanka will be praying that England are still a Test away from returning to form.

Sri Lanka win by 75 runs

The month and scenery changed, but this Test was a familiar tale for England: A frustrating and avoidable defeat. This time was all the more galling (no pun intended) for coming against a demonstrably weaker side. When England collapsed against Pakistan they had the excuse that they were up against a very good bowling unit, not so in Galle. Herath took what may have been the luckiest Test 12-fer in history (though the last one was taken by Jason Krejza, so maybe not) as the batsmen repeatedly gifted him their wickets. Of the seven recognised batsmen (ie, Strauss – Patel), nine of the 14 wickets to fall in both innings were needless. Even granting Patel leniency on debut and accepting the inevitability of the occasional batsman error, one would still call six of the 12 wickets inexcusable. Of those, two were to misplayed sweeps shots and three were to needless charges down the wicket (and remember, I am not including Broad through Monty in that). It is fair to say that without those errors, England would have won. Herath is not a 12-fer bowler without a lot of help, and in this match he picked up three wickets from stupid shots, three tail-end wickets and the debutant twice. The other four were at least reasonable, but four wickets for a subcontinent spinner is nothing special. But that’s about right, because it wasn’t a special performance. He was not only outbowled bowled by Swann, but even Randiv was getting more bounce and turn. It’s fair to say that Herath was the third best spinner in the match, but England made him look like Shane Bloody Warne. It’s frustrating, annoying and the same thing they did in the UAE. They should have learnt and they did not.

The bowlers were once again very good, but they did not cover themselves in glory the way they did in the UAE. Jimmy Anderson’s five wicket haul in the first innings was excellent, starting as it did by reducing Sri Lanka to 11-2 and removing the very dangerous Sangakkara first ball. He also produced a pair of fantastic deliveries to finish the innings on the second day, though by then it was later than England would have liked. Graeme Swann certainly deserved more for his efforts. Six wickets in the second innings, including Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Samaraweera (cumulative average: 159.12) for only 55 between them. He had Sri Lanka 127-8 in the second innings and gave England a chance to win. He also batted in a cap in both innings. It’s a small thing, but it does not happen nearly often enough and it is very, very cool when it does. Between all that, I think it would have been fair to have given Swann MotM.

The bowling unit as a whole, however, was not quite incisive enough and Strauss had a bit of a shocker with the captaincy. The biggest problem for England was probably the selection, we played two seamers and three spinners. The notion was presumably that the seamers would not be effective on the slow surface, but Anderson and Broad put the lie to that in the first innings. Neither Monty nor Patel looked incisive, meantime, and all of their wickets were those of tail-enders. This lack of firepower cost England badly as the Sri Lankan tail added valuable, and ultimately match winning, runs in both innings. The second innings was the more frustrating. This time, Sri Lanka did not have an established batsman to guide the tail and yet the last two wickets put on 87 runs. England only lost by 75, so it is no exaggeration to say that those cost England the match. Strauss did not captain well in that time. To be fair to him, he was handicapped by only having two wicket taking options: Patel and Panesar looked unlikely to bowl anyone out and Broad was half fit. Strauss could not keep Swann and Jimmy on for the entire session and Sri Lanka profited. At the same time, however, he did not attack enough. England needed to wickets to have a great chance of winning, but he put men back and allowed easy singles. The notion was to get the ‘rabbit’ on strike, but this seldom seems to work and it did not come close to doing so here. This is not the first time England have changed tactics to tail-enders and I find it baffling every time. The original tactics had reduced the Sri Lanka to 127-8 and got some of the best batsmen in the world out cheaply. Why alter that to a number ten? In the first innings, Jimmy bowled Welegedara with an unplayable offcutter. The batsman had no chance. Why this was not the plan in the second innings is beyond me.

England could have, and should have, won this match. There is still some hope, but they must cut out the errors before the next Test. Having watched this side at their best we know this is possible, but one would think it would have already happened. I have already written about how England can improve their player selection, but the biggest problem is shot selection. As long as they are playing rash shots, like sweeps, they will struggle.

Number one?

England have lost by 75 runs to Sri Lanka and thus need to win the next Test to stay number one in the world. I’ll mention what I think they need to do later/tomorrow, but right now I think there is a good question about whether England ‘should’ be number one or not. It’s something that has come up a few times on Twitter, albeit usually in the form of a snide remark by a South African/Australian/Indian. (Who, strangely, have not usually shown an actual desire to discuss the topic.) The obvious point is that England have lost four Tests in a row since officially becoming number one last August and in any sport it is very hard to do that and still justify being considered the best in the world. Even if England win the last Test, the question will remain after what has been a very poor winter and unless/until England convincingly win a series in the subcontinent there will certainly still be suggestions that England are not the true ‘number one’ side.

Cricket is already unique amongst international sport with its wide range of conditions and possible results, but it is also in a unique situation where the ‘number one’ question is more than usually pertinent. Cricket has had two dynasties that have stretched most of the past 30+ years: the West Indies and then Australia. I had already noticed (even last summer) that there were those who said that England could not be number one until they matched those two teams. That is patently absurd, of course. The fact that almost no team in any sport ever achieved that kind of domination is what made the West Indies and Australia so special. I don’t think most people would claim that modern teams have to match those two greats, but I do think their legacy runs deeper than is obvious. Most do not say that England have to establish worldwide dominance to be number one, but there are still suggestions that a number one side ‘should’ do certain things. (Win in all conditions being the usual one.) But that is rubbish too. The number one side, by definition, is simply the side that is better than all the other sides. Right now, no side (apparently) can win in all conditions, but we cannot simply have no number one side just as a domestic league cannot be without a table topper.

The question then is whether England are better than all other sides. There is not an obvious answer to that. The nearest, and probably only, competitor is South Africa and they have had problems too. South Africa have not won a series on the subcontinent since beating Pakistan in 2007. They have won only one series at home since the start of 2008, against Sri Lanka this year. England beat Sri Lanka at home too, plus India; Pakistan and Australia. On results one could not say that South Africa are better than England, but the recent ones make it very hard to say that South Africa are worse too. Officially, if England do not win the next Test our run of poor form will have been bad enough to go below South Africa. That’s fair enough, but I don’t think South Africans can feel hard done by if England win and stay at the top. (Just as they could not, or at least should not have, when they failed to beat New Zealand.) England don’t look like the best side in the world right now, but South Africa have hardly pushed for the title.

Luckily, the fixture list has been kind and the issue can be settled head-to-head this summer. Though the series is still too short.