England’s IPL policy should be stricter

I was glad to see yesterday that Hugh Morris has said that England will not be relaxing their stance on centrally contracted players in the IPL in the contracts that will be awarded the September. I did not think that they would, but it is still good to know that they are not going to cut into the Test season to provide a ‘window’ or field an under-strength team just to benefit the money-grubbing BCCI.

I actually think they could do with a stricter policy and not let players join the IPL at all. The ones who aren’t playing already are rested instead of playing in the County Championship, why should that not apply to all of the centrally contracted players? (Better still, they could improve the County Championship by having all the centrally contracted players take part, but either way the current set up makes no sense.) There is always the argument that playing careers are short and players need to go for the money right now, but not only are England players pretty well compensated already there is nothing them stopping them from playing in the IPL after they retire. Indeed, ageing former Test stars seem to be the foundation for many of the T20 leagues around the world; just look at Shane Warne. Amongst the counties, Notts are already doing this with their contracted players and I suspect more will follow. If they lose out on the players then they aren’t really losing much since the players are missing so much of the Championship with the IPL anyway. Especially if England backed them up by not having the centrally contracted players in the IPL then I doubt this would be a problem for the counties.

There is no reason an England player should be missing any of the English season to play in a foreign tournament. If they must participate in a T20 festival there are some, like the Big Bash League which run during the English winter and there’s no reason not to participate in those. But if the IPL want to have England players (which they probably don’t; I don’t see why they would really care) then they can stage their season earlier so that it does not conflict with the County Championship and the Test summer.

Graham Thorpe new pyjama batting coach

England announced that they are increasing their dual-coaching set up by having Graham Gooch only coach the batting in Tests now as Graham Thorpe will be the ODI and T20 batting coach. I think that it is a good idea; Thorpe has been coaching the Lions and this makes sense. Batting in Tests is quite different to batting in pyjama matches and England’s sides do change between the formats so why should this not be true for the coaches as well? This also eases the workload on Gooch and I suspect before too long England will have a specialist pyjama bowling coach as well.

I don’t think Thorpe will have too much work to do with the ODI side; Gooch did quite a good job overall in his time, despite the results in India. England were very poor in most of that series, but if the suggestions that Gooch was effectively sacked because of that are true (and I’m not sure they are) then it is quite harsh. England’s batting was very good through most of 2012 and in fact their ability to consistently put up large (if not huge) totals and give their bowlers something with which to work was instrumental in their success in the format in last year. Thorpe mostly needs to keep them doing what they are doing and work toward preparing them for the next World Cup. He might have a bit more work to do with the T20 side, of course. England are so inconsistent in that format it is hard to know what needs to be done there.

He won’t have a lot of time to make any substantial changes before the series in New Zealand starts; the first T20 is in under a fortnight. Obviously England don’t have any meaningful ODIs on the horizon as those don’t really exist, but it will be interesting to see if England have a particularly different approach to the ODIs this summer against Australia this summer than last.

Final ODI selection

England finish their tour of India today/tomorrow with a dead rubber ODI. After winning the Test series in December the tour is unquestionably a success and down 1-3 in the ODI series there is really nothing for which to play in this last match. England can’t even really use it to prepare for the future; they don’t play another ODI in the subcontinent until November of 2014 when they go to Sri Lanka and there are no ODI tournaments in the subcontinent on the Future Tours Programme.

But that’s not to say that England have nothing to lose. Whilst they would no doubt like to win it is important that they not pick up any injuries. The Ashes are still some way off, but there are Tests in New Zealand beginning in just over a month and there is no need to risk someone missing out on those for the benefit of an ODI and especially a dead rubber.

England have done a good job of resting players for the series as a whole, but now with the series effectively over they should look at going a step further. Alastair Cook has played in every match except the T20s on the tour to India and he is due to lead the side against New Zealand just a few weeks after the end of this series. Although he is the captain, the last thing we need is for him to start feeling burnout and I’d like to see him rested. Steven Finn too ought to rest, especially after the injuries that kept him out of three of the Tests in India. Ian Bell can lead the side in Cook and Broad’s absence; he, Kevin Pietersen and Joe Root are the only two of the main Test side I would play. In Bell’s case, he is not in the T20 squad so will have a bit of a break before the ODIs start and unlike Cook has not had to deal with the day-to-day burden of captaincy. Pietersen will be rested for the pyjama portion of the New Zealand tour and whilst it would not be a terrible idea to rest him it isn’t necessary. Root also could be rested, but didn’t play in most of the matches on this tour so shouldn’t need to be.

It would leave a very weak side on the whole, but it doesn’t matter a jot if England lose the series 2-3 or 1-4. The Tests are won and what is important now are the Tests against New Zealand and Australia.

England squad for New Zealand announced

England released their 15-man squad for the tour of New Zealand today. It is, of course, different from the one I would have selected. But it’s still a strong one overall and England are clearly taking the Kiwis seriously, which is good. Failures in South Africa notwithstanding, they do pose a threat with their bowling and can pull off an upset.

The biggest aspect is that Tim Bresnan has been dropped in favour of Chris Woakes. Apparently Bresnan is going to have more work done on his elbow; it’s clearly not been right since he had surgery on it a year ago. I had him in my squad of 15, but if there is something that actually can be done for his elbow then I’m glad they are trying that instead. I’m not entirely sold on replacing him with Woakes though. Woakes is talented, but I think a bit too much is made of his all-rounder tag. I view him as a bowler who can bat; he tends to come in well down the order for Warwickshire and he has a first-class batting average under forty. It does make him a bit of a like-for-like replacement for Bresnan and he’s certainly a good bowler, but I don’t think he’s better than Stuart Meaker as a bowler and that is who I would have picked after Bresnan. I don’t think batting ability should come into it unless a player is so good with the bat that he could be picked on it alone. For Woakes this clearly isn’t the case so it should only be a matter of who is the better bowler and I think it’s Meaker.

Eoin Morgan and Samit Patel have both dropped out as expected, but it hasn’t opened the door for James Taylor as I would have liked. Taylor will be captaining the England Lions instead, but I think he can count himself horribly unlucky. He did little wrong against South Africa; he had one good innings and one bad innings before being run out by Matt Prior at Lord’s. But he was left out of the tour to India behind Morgan (inexplicably) and to accommodate the horses-for-courses selection of Samit Patel. Now that they are both out Taylor should be back in the frame, but instead he seems to have been all-but-forgot with Jonny Bairstow and Joe Root ahead of him.

The squad that is selected is a strong one overall and it doesn’t leave much doubt about the likely XI. Unless there is another injury before the series starts (and I’m not delighted with England risking Broad in the one day series ahead of the Tests) the only real battle should be for the number six spot and it looks like Root will go into it as the strong favourite. We’ll know for sure in just over a month.

Suggested England Test squad

Tomorrow England will announce their touring party for the three Tests in New Zealand in March. I don’t think there will be any great surprises, but I am keen to see how they decide to pick players on the first tour to more English conditions after the loss to South Africa last summer. As I mentioned a few days ago, Nick Compton ought to retain his spot in the playing XI and although Joe Root will certainly be on the plane I would play him either at six or not at all. It’s also already been confirmed that it will be a 15-man squad with Jonny Bairstow as reserve wicket-keeper.

It is the question of who to bat at six which I think will dominate the squad discussions and lone warmup, though now at least it is because England have many good options instead of none. But they still have both Root and Bairstow and neither have done anything to be dropped and really neither has James Taylor. England seemed to forget about him when naming the side to tour India and I’d like to see him recalled for the series in New Zealand. Samit Patel will presumably be missing out after his poor performance in India and Eoin Morgan should definitely be dropped as well, but with the squad size being cut overall I think Taylor may still miss out. I would have him on the plane though, as injury cover if nothing else. The selectors need to keep him in the picture though even if he does miss out; I thought he looked perfectly capable in the two Tests against South Africa that he played and I think that if England had gone to New Zealand before India he would be in the squad.

The bowling can’t be completely ignored though. There is still the nagging doubts about Stuart Broad’s fitness after his latest injury kept him out of the ODIs in India. He’ll be in the squad, of course, but England should have a plan in place in case he gets injured again. It’s tempting to want to add another bowler as cover (Stuart Meaker the likely candidate), but England do have four other fast bowlers who can expect to be on the plane which should be enough and possibly even more than enough. I would drop Panesar from the squad though as spin is unlikely to play a major role and Root and Kevin Pietersen should be all England need to support Swann. I would either just leave his spot empty (the squad is being cut by three players compared to the India one) or replace him with a batsman.

My squad in full would then be:
Cook*, Anderson, Bairstow, Bell, Bresnan, Broad, Compton, Finn, Onions, Pietersen, Prior, Root, Swann, Taylor, Trott

Compton should open in New Zealand

It’s a bit early to start really looking at the XI to play the first Test against New Zealand; the first Test is still over a month away and England are still playing the ODIs in India. But this week Michael Vaughan said that he thought Joe Root should open the batting in New Zealand with Jonny Bairstow coming back at number six. (I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the former Yorkshire player is advocating two Yorkshire men…) As good as Root has looked and as much as I do think Bairstow deserves more chances, I think it would be a mistake to drop Nick Compton.

Compton looked the perfect Test opener in India; he batted cautiously and wore down the bowlers when he needed to early in the innings and when he had the chance to play more aggressively he showed that he could do that too. He only made the one fifty, but it’s hard to ask for much more from a debutant. Root also played very well in the one Test he played, but not only is that not enough to immediately stick him up the order I don’t think it is enough to even guarantee his place at number six. It was only one Test and I think both Bairstow and James Taylor should still be in the running for the position. Neither have really done anything to be dropped and especially I don’t think that Root’s innings against India were particularly more impressive than Bairstow’s innings at Lord’s against South Africa. (Which is not to take away from Root’s performance, of course.)

The only way Root should open the batting for now is if Compton either gets injured or has a run of failures against New Zealand. This could happen, of course, but Compton has some credit built up and even if he does have some failures he should be given at least a couple of Tests. I would start with Root at six in New Zealand as I don’t think the one warmup England are playing ahead of the Tests will really be enough to knock him off that spot, but I would definitely have Bairstow and Taylor both in the squad. England have three very good options at number six now (making for a pretty drastic change from just a year ago when they didn’t have any) and they shouldn’t chisel any one of them into stone. But at the same time there is no need to get rid of a solid looking opener just to make more room at number six.

Three small things

1) England won an ODI in India. They have not done so (or at least not done so against India, they obviously did win a few matches at the last World Cup) since the 2006 tour and even that was in a dead rubber win and their only one in the seven match series. I didn’t see most of it, but it was a close affair with both sides scoring over 300. It was also the first match of the new ODI fielding restrictions, so it’s hard to say if the bowlers really underperformed or if scores are going to be higher on average now. We’ll probably never find out though; it surely can’t be long before the ICC simply make every over a powerplay over in the name of increased ‘excitement’. England will be obviously pleased to win and go 1-0 up in the series, but it is especially important with their recent record in India to get that first win out of the way and I think it will give them an excellent confidence boost ahead of the next match.

2) South Africa are 325-4 after the first day of the second Test against New Zealand. At least in the second half of the day, which is the part I saw, New Zealand did not look particularly penetrative and they let South Africa get well ahead from it being about honours even halfway through the day. They didn’t help themselves in the field; there was one dropped catch (against Hashim Amla no less), a low chance missed at slip and a would-be caught behind given not out and then not reviewed. I expected South Africa would put up a good first innings score, but the Kiwis have made it too easy for them at least on the first day. The pitch was turning by stumps, so the fact that neither side have a good spinner might become important.

3) An ICC committee have made another suggestion about DRS, this time that it be left up to the home board. I like this idea and this is the most reasonable implementation apart from simply making it mandatory. It would be simply a part of the conditions for each country, much like the different brand of ball used or the different hours of play. Of course, India have already expressed a dislike of the idea which means that it will be blocked just like all the previous times this has been tried.

South Africa v New Zealand second Test preview

On Friday England’s first ODI against India starts two hours before the second South Africa v New Zealand Test. Even from an English standpoint it’s a bit tricky to know which one is more important. England have already played ten ODIs against India in the past 18 months and have five Tests coming up against New Zealand, so how the Kiwis try to fight back may give a hint of what England can expect starting in March. Plus, England’s recent record in ODIs in India means that the Test might be a closer contest.

The pitch in Port Elizabeth looks like it will make any comparison difficult, however. It has tended to be rather slow in the past and by all accounts it still is. It may actually be closer to the pitch on which England will be playing in Rajkot than the pitch on which they will play in Dunedin. It’s slow enough, in fact, that New Zealand are considering a second spinner for the match after dropping Chris Martin and there is a decent argument for doing so. South Africa actually don’t have a good record at the ground, they’ve not won a Test there this century, and it may be that a bit of extra turn will be their undoing. New Zealand are playing three seamers either way (though I suspect Colin Munro has likely been picked to shore up the batting as much as anything else) so a second spinner is probably a reasonable decision. Bruce Martin does not have great first-class statistics, but they aren’t appalling and I expect they came almost entirely on pitches more conducive to seam bowling.

South Africa don’t appear to be considering a second spinner, though given that said spinner would likely be Imran Tahir it isn’t a surprise. Robin Peterson hardly inspires fear, but he is the best option. Their only change will be the return of Rory Kleinveldt in place of the injured Vernon Philander. Whilst it is a good chance for them to try to develop their bowling in depth, it looks like a fairly big blow as Kleinveldt did not impress in the two Tests he got in Australia. South Africa do need him to step up though. Not so much for this particular Test, they can afford a bit of a let-up, but for the upcoming series against Pakistan. They look to be much tougher opposition and South Africa need to make sure they have someone to back up the main three quicks.

South Africa are still strong favourites in this Test, of course, but New Zealand do have a chance to come back well. They have not changed their batting from the last Test and they will need to perform rather better, but they are boosted by the fact that the pitch will give the South Africans less assistance this time and by the absence of Philander who did most of the damage in the 45 all out. I don’t expect them to win, but I do expect them to compete this time and perhaps push for a draw. I expect that South Africa will put up a fairly large total in the first innings (regardless of who wins the toss), so a lot will depend on how New Zealand’s batsmen can build on their second innings performance from Cape Town. I hope that they do bat better; I want to see a contest. But I suppose if it gets too one-sided I can always turn back over to the ODI…

India v England ODI preview

England start the final leg of their tour to India this week with a five match ODI series. I don’t tend to pay much attention to pyjama cricket and certainly I won’t be staying up all night (the start of play in my timezone is 00.30 for the first four matches and 21.30 for the last one) to watch them. But there are some interesting aspects.

Pyjama cricket has generally been a strength for India and a weakness for England and especially in India. England’s last three ODI series in India have yielded a combined 16-1 advantage for the home side as well as a tie in a World Cup match. But England go into the series in good ODI form whilst India do not. England beat Pakistan, the West Indies and Australia to love last year before drawing the ODI series against South Africa. It’s not true to say that India have struggled in that time, but their results have been much more mixed. Most recently they lost a home ODI series to Pakistan which I doubt will have gone down well. I don’t think the fact that England lost their first two warmups will indicate much. They failed to win any of the warmups ahead of the successful Test series and when they played an ODI series in India last October they won both warmups before losing badly in the actual series.

I think England are probably marginal favourites for the series; both sides are difficult to predict, but England are in form and confident. What they will need to do is tighten up the bowling; with players being (rightly) rested from the series and Broad injured it means that there is not a lot on which to rely. James Tredwell is a decent spinner and I’d like to see Danny Briggs bowl alongside him. (Actually, I’d prefer to see Simon Kerrigan bowl alongside him, but he isn’t in the squad.) It would be an interesting blend of different styles and vastly different experience. The seam bowling relies on Steven Finn to be fit and effective; none of Jade Dernbach, Tim Bresnan, Stuart Meaker or Chris Woakes really inspire confidence yet. England’s batting looks strong enough, however, that even if India do manage to exploit the weak bowling (and their batting is out-of-form, so they may not) England will probably still be in the game.

I think the series will see at least couple of one-sided affairs in each direction, but will ultimately go down to a 3-2 margin in favour of England. If India can get their batting going, however, we may see a repeat of the last few series.

Timing of intervals

Last night, as the last Test of the Australia v Sri Lanka series wound to a close there was a slightly odd situation where tea was taken with Australia needing just five runs to win. The timing of the intervals is something that comes up occasionally in cricket; both can be moved slightly to try to make them match up with things like innings breaks, but we still get occasions like this or like the one exactly a year ago in South Africa where tea was taken before the hosts chased two runs to win. It’s very easy to shake one’s head suggest that cricket be less rigid and inflexible, but I think the issue is more complicated than that.

Whilst it certainly does look ridiculous on the face of it, I think a lot of the criticism that ensues every time there is an oddly timed interval or close of play is harsh. For instance, part of the problem was that in both of the specific occasions named above tea had been delayed already. The way to avoid it being taken with five to win would have been to take it at the scheduled time. But I suspect that this would still have not been palatable to many; after all it seemed like an appropriate occasion to delay tea when it happened. And those are specific cases anyway, there is a more general point.

The problem is that as strange as it seems on the face of it, there is really not much to be done that would not be even worse. It’s all well and good to say that ‘common sense’ should be used, but what is common sense to one person is not to another. I think it is common sense that someone who averaged under 44 should not be in a team of the year, but quite a few disagree. This is why the laws and regulations are written down in the first place and hopefully (but not always) written so as to be unambiguous. Even if odd situations arise there is consistency and everyone knows what to expect before hand. There can be no blaming of the umpire’s judgement if the timing goes against a particular team. The timings of the intervals is a minor matter overall and so it would probably not be a problem if it was simply left up to the umpires, but I think doing so would actually cause as many problems as it solves.

I actually think the current regulations are pretty good; I don’t like by how much lunch and tea can be delayed, but it’s fairly clear and reasonable which cannot be said of a lot of the ICC regulations. If a side is nine down then the interval is delayed and it is taken early if a side is bowled out. There are some tweaks that can be made, but I don’t think there is any inherent improvement that can be made and I don’t think there is a way to get rid of these ‘ridiculous’ situations. It’s really only a mild nuisance and most changes would make things worse.