Let’s get this over with

Now that the World Series is over I can turn my attention back to England’s disaster of a tour to India. The final match is tomorrow, a one-off T20 in Calcutta. England are the reigning T20 World Champions as well as the number one ranked T20 side according to the ICC’s recently unveiled rankings. Despite this, I can’t see England winning. Admittedly, T20s are rather more of a lottery than any other format (as we saw against the West Indies) but England have played so abjectly against India that it will take a huge slice of luck to win. Graeme Swann will lead the side again and once again it will be a very young side.

After the match England will be able to fly home for a much needed rest until the series against Pakistan in the UAE in the new year. Whilst there will be a lot of questions asked about the performance in India, England have never been all that good at ODIs in India and the focus should certainly be on the upcoming series. Pakistan are playing rather well against Sri Lanka right now, and it is looking like it will be a good contest in January. Pakistan have shown that they have the firepower to bowl England out twice in that series (though they’ll need to improve their fielding). I think this will be the more interesting of the two series. Sri Lanka appear to pose the opposite problem; England found it difficult to bowl them out twice in England this summer and it won’t be any easier in Sri Lanka. England have not actually won a Test match in Sri Lanka since the last match of the 2001 series, but Sri Lanka are a worse side than they have been for some time and England are a much better side. I think England will manage to beat Sri Lanka 1-0, but I’m not sure about Pakistan. It’s going to be a tricky winter and the best thing England can do is get the T20 over with and put the series behind them.

Test match supremacy

It’s been been over two months now since the last time England have played a Test match. It’s a frustrating quirk of this year’s schedule that we have two tour after New Year’s, but none before. (Except the current half-trip to India.) It’s good for the players, as they need time off, but it is frustrating as a fan not to have Test cricket on. One-day cricket isn’t the same. I like it, but it’s not as good. (And I don’t just mean when England are playing.) One-day cricket still takes all day, and despite the best efforts of the ICC still has incurably dull middle overs. And it fails to have the ebb and flow of a Test match; it’s not a true measure of skill. It’s not a Test.

I absolutely adore Test cricket. It, and first-class cricket in general, are far and away the most beautiful, not only of cricket, but of sport in general. Football calls itself the beautiful game, but it isn’t. Test cricket is. There is simply nothing that compares to the rich nuances of a test match. Test cricket is the only sport in the world where subtle tactical changes and gradual shifts in momentum can play a huge role days after the fact. There is nothing in the world as gripping (or as bad for the fingernails) as the slow burning climax to a close Test. The finales of the Edgbaston and Cardiff Ashes tests are burnt into my memory as clearly as if they had happened yesterday.

Test cricket also brings out the tragedy of a lone hand better than any sport. Rare is the footballer who scores a hat trick on the losing side and in a T20 a quick 60 will often win a match regardless of other player’s failings. But this is not true in Test cricket. England’s 4-0 whitewash of India over the summer was full of incredible feats, but one of the most memorable was that of Rahul Dravid refusing to give in as his team-mates collapsed around him. In each of his centuries in England Rahul Dravid stayed at the crease for longer than three football matches back to back, and his team still lost. The only other sport that has something like this is baseball, where a pitcher can perform brilliantly, but still lose. Test cricket is the only sport where you have to maintain complete concentration days at a time, knowing that any lapse could be disastrous.

And the beauty of Test cricket does not lie merely in the knowledge of the match, or the individual heroics of the players. The play itself is often visually stimulating as well. Even those with no knowledge of cricket can appreciate the simple elegance of Michael Vaughan playing a cover drive. You don’t need any background to sense the hostility of Allan Donald bowling to Michael Atherton. (Or to be mildly amused by Atherton’s ‘defiant’ face.) You don’t, or at least very seldom, see such things is the shorter form of the game though. Cover drives take a back seat to slogging and bowlers don’t have time to get stuck into a batsman. A lot of the beauty is lost in favour of big sixes and superficial entertainment. (Like cheerleaders; what idiot decided that a cricket match needed cheerleaders?)

It faintly annoys me that there should even be a cause to defend Test cricket. The fact that it is the best form of the game ought to be self-evident. It is fuller, richer and more exciting than any other sport on the planet. Twenty overs of slogging (with or without an additional thirty overs of knocking the ball around the corner for a single) cannot possibly compare to a full five day Test of a cricketer’s ability. And yet, some people think there is no need for Test cricket! They call it ‘antiquated’ like it’s a bad thing. Test cricket is antiquated in the best possible sense of the word. Test cricket is antiquated in the same way that Elgar and Tchaikovsky are antiquated. Their music is still performed and sold to this day because it is the best there is. It will still be performed in another hundred, but today’s pop music won’t be. Test cricket is the gentleman’s game, it is fair play made corporeal, it is cricket!

What it isn’t is ‘boring’. How anyone without the excuse of not knowing how the game is played (every game looks boring if you don’t know what’s happening) could possibly claim that it is baffles me. (Here the comparison to classical music comes again; both are called ‘boring’, but by only those with no concept of beauty .) In India, supposedly the biggest cricketing nation on earth, limited overs matches are more popular! India has had a considerably negative impact on Test cricket, from insisting that the IPL be given priority over everything to scuppering the DRS. With India’s financial might there is a danger of players, especially from the smaller nations, eschewing Test cricket in favour of more lucrative T20s. It would be a great shame if this happened. Testing Times is a great idea; the ICC need to give more financial support to Test cricket. Whilst I don’t think that Test cricket will ever disappear, (at least not whilst Australia and England still play cricket) the prospect of a return to the days of only three nations playing test cricket (or to the current set up in women’s cricket, where Tests are few and far between) is one to be avoided at all costs.

The TV’s been off

I was planning to write this morning about how either the Texas Rangers had won the World Series with substandard pitching or how the Cardinals had forced a Game Seven for the first time (in the World Series) since 2002. But instead the game was postponed mid afternoon as it was clear that it was going to rain all day. Well worse things have happened in Bangladesh.

I couldn’t stay up to watch Pakistan play Sri Lanka, but so far the match is following much the same course as the first test with Sri Lanka bowled out cheaply in the first innings and Pakistan on course for a big lead after the second day. Also like the first match, Pakistan are scoring at under three an over. They’ll probably need to get a move on.

I couldn’t watch the England Women’s T20 against South Africa because it wasn’t on, but England won comfortably again. South Africa posted 128-6 off their 20 overs, with Alison Hodgkinson making 51 off 37 balls before being run out. England chased down the runs with almost three full overs to spare. Laura Marsh was out for a duck, but Charlotte Edwards scored 49 off 46 and Sarah Taylor made exactly fifty off just 33 deliveries. Those were the only three to fall for England, who now lead the three match series 1-0.

Recap

Some brief thoughts on occurrences today:

The England men collapsed from 129-0 to 176 all out. It was pretty spectacular, even by English ODI standards, but there is little to be said about the match that has not been said on the tour already. The loss hands England a 0-5 whitewash. England can try to salvage a bit of face in a one off T20 before having two months off preceding the series against Pakistan in the UAE.

England were on the good side of a whitewash in South Africa though, as the women beat South Africa by five wickets to secure a 3-0 whitewash. A good bowling performance ensured that they only had to chase 182 to win and despite the early losses of Charlotte Edwards and Danni Wyatt they got home with a full seven overs to spare. Lydia Greenway top scored with 63, (and won Player of the Series) and Heather Knight won Player of the Match for her unbeaten 55 with the bat and 2-15 with the ball. England now have a three match T20 series to conclude the tour.

Bangladesh drew their rain ruined Test against the West Indies in Chittagong. There was never going to be a result, although the Windies were bowled out for 244 (a deficit of 106). Bangladesh were the better side and will take heart from debutant Elias Sunny who took 6-94 in the first innings. Two full days were lost to rain, although it was all overnight rain. The groundstaff could not get the outfield dry and days two and three were completely lost. It was something of a farce and should not happen on a test match ground, even in Bangladesh. The Windies have not had a great tour thus far; they won the ODI series 2-1, but were bowled out for 61 in the last match and this performance was a pretty poor one. There is one match left in the series and they will need to up their game considerably to avoid a humiliating defeat.

Zimbabwe won a historic victory against New Zealand. They chased down 329 to win by just one wicket and with one ball to spare. It was their highest ever successful run chase. Malcolm Waller won a deserving Man of the Match after scoring an unbeaten 99 off 74 deliveries and hitting the winning runs (though he was dropped twice in the last over). The Kiwis still won the series 2-1, but this does add something (I’m not sure what, exactly, probably some sort of spice) to the one off test match next week. Hopefully it will be a good match.

Not today, but on Sunday South Africa (men) levelled their series against Australia, inflicting an 80 run defeat on the tourists. Australia won the first match by 93 runs (D/L) so it’s been a pair of hammerings, but in opposite directions. The ODI series concludes on Friday and I am not even going to try to predict how that will go. A tie would probably be most fitting.

Fixing a hole where the rain gets in

The spot fixing trial is nearing it’s conclusion. It’s been interesting to watch as the defence lawyers a) tried to explain away some fairly damming evidence and b) turned on each other in so doing. Asif has accused Butt of swearing at him to try to coax an unwitting no-ball and Butt has accused Asif (and Amir) of organising their own fixes without his knowledge. I’ve been trying to decide which one seems less likely. It’s a tough call, neither sound overly plausible. For Asif not to have been involved Butt would have to be confident that a man with over a hundred Test wickets couldn’t add an extra yard of pace without overstepping. For Butt not to have been involved someone must have been exceptionally confident that Asif would bowl a long spell. (Which is what Asif’s barrister has argued.) One or both of them is clearly lying and the simplest explanation is that they’re both lying.

The judge in the case, Justice Cooke, has instructed the jury to assume the guilt of Majeed and Amir which all parties agree is the case. I can’t see how this could be a good thing for either Butt or Asif though. Especially for Butt; if it is given that there was fixing and that his agent was involved, then… The only thing Asif has in his favour is that none of the marked money was found in his hotel room, but that’s hardly conclusive.

I can’t see how either of them could be found Not Guilty. The notion that Asif could have bowled his no-ball at the right time, but without knowing what he was doing is laughable. The notion that Amir, Asif and Butt’s agent could all have been involved in fixing without Butt’s knowledge is more likely, but it’s still decidedly far fetched. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that all four were involved.

It’s almost over

England’s ill-advised ODI series comes to an end tomorrow in Calcutta with England looking to avoid a 5-0 whitewash. On form, the match is more likely to be rained off than England are to win. What we’ve learnt from the series so far is that England’s ODI bowlers still struggle to take wickets on slower surfaces. They’ve not done a bad job of keeping things tight early on (though it’s not been anything about which to write home either), but India have had wickets in hand and been able to put up big runs in the late overs. We’ve also learnt that England’s ODI batsmen still struggle on slow surfaces against spin. The normally sharp fielding has also been dreadful this series, meaning that England have bowled poorly, batted poorly and fielded poorly. It’s pretty much exactly what India did in England over the summer and we are seeing the same results. The sooner England can get it over with the better.

I don’t think it forecasts any extra difficulty in the Test series next year, however. England’s ODI side have always been a mercurial (or just an outright shambles) even when the Test side has done well. (Example: The post Ashes ODI series.) Including the current one, the last three tours of India have seen England win one out of fifteen completed matches. In the five accompanying Test matches, however, England have performed rather creditably. They drew the 2006 series 1-1 and had the better of the drawn match. They lost 0-1 in 2008, but the loss was that famous Chennai test in which England played quite well. It should also be remembered that those two sides were hardly world beaters. In 2006 they had come off a 0-2 loss in Pakistan and would go on to draw Sri Lanka 1-1 at home. In 2008 they had come off a 1-2 home loss to South Africa and would go on to be bowled out for 51 by the West Indies. In both cases, their Test performance was better in India than in the preceding or subsequent series despite losing badly in the ODIs. It’s impossible to know in what condition the Test side will be in a year’s time, but right now I’d back England to win the Test series in India.

England have won!

And won convincingly to take an unassailable 2-0 lead in the series! After losing the toss and being put into bat they put up a formidable 315-6 off their fifty overs. Charlotte Edwards led the way with 138 off 139 balls. She was ably supported by Sarah Taylor who scored 77 off 63 balls and with whom she shared a partnership of 159 (at eight an over). South Africa always had trouble keeping up with the required rate. By the time they reached the halfway point of their innings they were only two wickets down, but the asking rate was almost eight an over and their only hope was to keep wickets in hand. When they lost four wickets in three overs shortly thereafter the match was all over bar the shouting. South Africa failed to bat out their fifty overs; they were bowled out for 219 in the 48th over to give England a 2-0 lead in the series. The wickets were shared around the England bowlers, with Laura Marsh, Danni Hazell, Arran Brindle and Danni Wyatt taking two apiece and Heather Knight taking one. The win secures the series for England, and they will go for the whitewash on Tuesday.

The England men also ‘played’, insofar as they appeared on a cricket pitch during a scheduled match. The match was very similar to the second one. England batted first and only scored 220. They had a decent start, but once again had a torrid time against spin (Bell still didn’t play) and ended up well short of a competitive target. The bowlers did better this time; Tim Bresnan conceded only forty runs off his ten overs and Steven Finn had another good match, taking 3-45 off his ten. They never had a defensible target, however, and India could get the runs off the other bowlers. India won with ten overs to spare, in a familiar thrashing.

I only watched part of the men’s match. There are only so many times one can watch such a one sided match (at least when one’s side is on the losing end) and I had only had two and a half hours of sleep anyway. But I’m a bit disappointed that the women’s match was not broadcast anywhere that I could find. Even Cricinfo’s live updates were minimalist. I know that there’s not a lot of demand for it, but England have a very good women’s side (even if they seldom play Test matches) and it would have been quite nice to be able to at least listen to the match live. Two and a half years ago, just after England’s women won the World Cup, (for the third time, making them the single most successful England team in any sport) Claire Taylor wrote an article for the Telegraph about the need for coverage of the women’s game. It’s quite good and all the points are still relevant. There’s another reason why the England women’s side should get media coverage though: They are very good. They play cricket to a very high standard and it is always pleasant to watch good cricket. The broadcasters don’t seem to realise this.

Catches win matches

Pakistan ought to have won the first test against Sri Lanka. The match was drawn despite the fact that Sri Lanka were bowled out for 197 in the first innings and it never rained. Sri Lanka fought very well in the second innings, Kumar Sangakkara scored a brilliant double ton, but Pakistan did not allow themselves enough time to force a result. Perhaps they had watched the Cardiff test and assumed that Sri Lanka would roll over again. Whatever the reason, Pakistan didn’t make much of an effort to kick on in their first innings. The only batsman who looked like he was batting for a declaration was Misbah-ul-Haq who scored a quick 46 before being unfairly given out. That dismissal made it 436-4, but the new batsman, Asad Shafiq proceeded to crawl to 26 off of 94 deliveries! To cap his disaster of an innings he ran out his partner, the double centurion Taufeeq Umar. It was a dreadful innings, especially in the circumstance. When Umar Gul was out for a duck it brought the declaration on 511-6. Pakistan had scored at less than three an over. Although Shafiq was the worst culprit, both Azhar Ali and Younis Khan had strike rates of only 35.

This left Pakistan just over two days to bowl out Sri Lanka with a lead of 314. They still ought to have done this, although the conditions favoured the batsman. They got one wicket before close on the third day; a fortunate one as Tony Hill unfairly gave Paranavitana out LBW first ball. They took only four wickets on day four however and dropped five catches. They put down another on the last day, though by that time Sangakkara and Prasanna Jayawardene had already steered Sri Lanka to safety. Sangakkara’s 211 will have been particularly galling; he was reprieved multiple times.

I’ll be interested to see how Pakistan go from here. The next test is on Wednesday in Dubai and the conditions are unlikely to improve. They gambled a bit by playing Junaid Khan in this test ahead of Wahab Riaz, but he very much justified his place and was arguably Pakistan’s best bowler in the match. (Umar Gul is the other possibility.) I doubt Pakistan will make any changes, they played well overall, but they need to improve their fielding.

England can relax now

Yesterday England failed to defend 298 in a 50-over ODI. It means they trail 0-3 in the five match series and have lost 13 of their last 15 matches against India in India. The pitch was pretty good and India are a good side, but England ought to have won. They were anchored by Jonathan Trott’s 98 off 116 balls and supported by Samit Patel, who scored 70 off 43 balls. (Patel also had an good match with the ball, taking 0-50 off his ten overs and winning a motorbike for his efforts.) The usual furore over Jonathan Trott erupted again with some thinking that a strike rate just under 85 is too slow for an ODI. This is nonsense, about which I blogged at the time. The real blame belongs to England’s bowlers and fielding.

Finn bowled well taking the new ball, but Bresnan and Dernbach were charged with bowling at the death and they had absolute shockers. Indeed, they’ve had a very poor series. Bresnan has taken 4-169 at 6.94 an over and Dernbach has taken 1-168 at 6.54 an over. As the strike leader and primary death bowler they have to do better than that. They had an indefensible total in the second ODI, but lost their grip on the match late in the innings in the first and third. India scored 300 both times, but shouldn’t have either time. The bowlers weren’t helped by the fielding, which was lacklustre at best. England allowed singles where there should have been dot balls and twos where there should have been singles, not to mention the occasional grotesque misfield for four. Kieswetter had a particularly bad match; he dropped two chances and then failed to effect what should have been an easy run out in the penultimate over.

It was this over that took the match away from England. Despite a general lack of discipline in the field and lack of incisiveness in the bowling, India needed thirty off the final three overs. Knife edge stuff, but England had taken wickets in the 38th, 39th and 42nd overs and steadily forced the required run rate up to something defensible. India had a good 48th over against Finn (who was England’s best bowler in the match) to get the equation down to 17 off the last 12 balls. Then the wheels fell off. Jadeja ought to have been run out off the first ball of the 49th over as he tried for a suicidal second run, but Kieswetter tread on the stumps and was unable to correctly put down the wicket. The wicket would have made England clear favourites. Dernbach’s radar was off, as it had been throughout the match, and he went on to bowl a wide and then a no-ball on height. By the time the over finally finished India needed just seven to win and Bresnan had no hope in the final over. (Not that he bothered to make it close.)

I say England can relax now because the last two matches of the series will be dead rubbers, giving them a chance to ring some changes. (They named an unchanged side in the first three.) The most obvious change is to bring in Ian Bell. I, and others, have been calling for it since the first match. I think he’ll come in for Kieswetter, who has done himself few favours in this series. Borthwick may also come into the side, though if so he would probably replace Patel and Patel has done very well in the last two matches after a poor start to the tour. He may instead come in for Bopara who hasn’t done much so far. I definitely expect Dernbach will miss out after having a very poor series. His replacement would either be Graham Onions or Stuart Meaker; probably Meaker since he was in the original party whilst Onions is a replacement for Chris Woakes. There are two matches left; time enough for each to get a game, but I’d actually like to see them both play and Bresnan miss out. This would be an ambitious move by Flower which would send a firm message to the under-performing bowlers. With Anderson and Broad both likely to return for the next ODI series it will make for good competition for places.

A walk or a Trott?

Jonathan Trott splits opinion more than most cricketers and indeed more than most sportsmen. This is particularly true in the ODIs, where he is either a brilliant accumulator of runs or a limpet clogging up the innings. Today he has scored 98 not out off 116 balls. He could have been run out very early after a huge mix-up with KP but the Indian’s fielding was awry. (Which was surprising in that they’ve been quite sharp in this series but pretty familiar for anyone who watched them in England.) His strike rate in this innings was pretty close to his career average and 98 runs in any match is not something at which to be sniffed. But the impression of scoring slowly still remains.

This is, I am convinced, harsh. England scored 298-4 in fifty overs, just a hair shy of a run a ball. Trott was not far off this rate, but when compared to KP’s 64 off 61 balls or Patel’s unbeaten 70 off 43 it certainly looks slow. But without Trott sticking around and keeping the scoreboard ticking over those innings may not have been possible. Bopara never looked set and if Patel had to contend with that at the other end he may not have been able to get himself going. Yes, Trott could have kicked on more, but that isn’t how he plays. When he’s got out cheaply England have collapsed. It’s important to have people like Kieswetter, Pietersen and Bairstow who can score at better than a run a ball, but it needs a Cook or a Trott to hold up the other end. You need to score runs to win any cricket match. Trott has been one of the few batsmen to consistently do this in ODIs and he ought to be recognised as one of England’s best ODI batsmen.