Lord’s, day one: South Africa 262-7

I suspect that Andrew Strauss will have enjoyed the first day of his hundredth Test more than Graeme Smith will have enjoyed the first day of his record-tying 93rd as captain. I said yesterday that I thought it would be a good toss to lose as both captains would likely bat despite the good bowling conditions and that seems to have been the case. Smith won the toss and batted and England bowled very well in the overcast conditions, reducing South Africa to 54-4 at lunch. It was comfortably England’s best session in the field in this series and the first time South Africa had been under real pressure.

It did not come without some fortune for England, however. Both Alviro Petersen and Jacques Kallis were ‘Kasprowiczed’: given out caught to a ball that took the glove after the bat had been released. The Kallis dismissal was particularly controversial as it was given not out by the on-field umpire and reviewed by England. The ball clearly hit the glove and Rod Tucker overturned the original decision, but he seemed to completely forget that the glove had to still be holding the bat. Whilst it was a matter of millimetres and milliseconds, there was never enough evidence to actually overturn the decision and had it been the other way there might not have even been enough evidence to uphold it. It was an absolute shocker and South Africa will no doubt feel aggrieved. For England, though, the morning session represented an overdue slice of luck after a series seemingly dominated by good balls missing the outside edge or miscued shots avoiding fielders.

Apart from those two questionable dismissals, England did bowl very well through the first part of the day and the dismissals of Smith and Amla were both down to simply excellent bowling. A very good away swinger from Anderson after lunch also accounted for de Villiers, but after that England took their foot off somewhat. It is not to say that they bowled poorly, but they were not bowling those sharp, testing balls that were helping to induce errors. Part of this was that the ball was older, of course, but once it stopped moving extravagantly England seemed to relax too much. This is all too often the case with England. Rudolph and Duminy batted well, but for most of their innings they were not under the same pressure as their predecessors. Even after Rudolph gifted his wicket to Swann, England did not seem to attack enough. Philander rode his luck a bit, but then settled into a proper innings and made it to stumps 46 not out. That’s more than any of South Africa’s top five and more than Smith, Amla and Kallis scored combined. Whilst he does have some skill with the bat, England will be very disappointed with letting him score so many.

Whilst England did get Duminy out with the second new ball, that was the only one they managed to get before stumps. They did do well overall; England are on top still and I am sure that having lost the toss Strauss would have taken 262-7 at stumps. But the tale told by South Africa going from 54-4 to 105-5 to 262-7 is not a pretty one for England and they really should be batting by now.

Tomorrow England need to finish South Africa off quickly. The pitch is not a minefield; it’s still recognisably a Lord’s wicket. But it’s not quite as flat as the usual style and we have seen deliveries misbehave already. It looks like 400 is probably a par first innings score, possibly even less. England really cannot waste any more time; they have already conceded more tail end runs than they would like and one expects that England will have to bowl South Africa out for under 300 to really still be on top. And whatever score South Africa do make, England then have to match it. England’s batsmen have good records at Lord’s, but they need to keep their heads tomorrow. We saw them get in and get out at Headingley; they must not do that here. They still have a good chance to take control of this match over the next two days and it’s crucial that they start to do so tomorrow. If they fail, however, South Africa could very easily be on top by stumps.

Eng v SA third Test preview

For the second time in as many years England go into the sixth Test of a summer knowing that a win will secure the number one spot. The pressure is much higher this time, however, as unlike against India there is no room for error. England have had a poor 2012, a fairly poor series and the preparation for this last Test has been far from ideal.

This crucial Test is also Andrew Strauss’ hundredth. Unfortunately this has largely been overshadowed by the Pietersen saga, but Strauss has handled himself extremely well and his comments on the matter of been a welcome oasis of level-headedness. Whilst England will miss Pietersen in that he is a talented batsmen, the increase in team unity should not be underestimated and nor should the benefit of having that distraction at least taken out of sight. It will leave the batting weakened, but it is important to remember that Pietersen has failed when the team needs him at least as often as he has played the sort of brilliant hundred we saw at Headingley. The batting is weakened, but not to the extent many seem to believe. England’s rise to the top of the Test ranking was built off team efforts and it is to this which they will be trying to return in their effort to stay there.

England will need their batsmen to fire, but they actually have a very good record batting at Lord’s and for all the talk about the batting I expect the key will be the bowling. England’s attack did much better at Headingley than they did at the Oval, but they won’t get a lot of help from the Lord’s surface. Despite effectively doing so at Headingley, England are unlikely to play five bowlers at Lord’s so at least one of Tim Bresnan or Steven Finn will miss out. But as I’ve said before I would actually drop them both and play Graham Onions who will likely be better suited to the conditions. Whoever is named in the XI tomorrow morning, however, they will all need to perform. England do not want to rely on Stuart Broad finding his length in a devastating spell as happened at Headingley.

South Africa meantime have little about which to worry. They will have no doubt enjoyed watching the Pietersen furore and although the Headingley match was probably closer than they might have liked they have the confidence of knowing that their plans have worked so far. There seems little chance of a change from the last Test; the only possibility was that Petersen might miss out with his hamstring injury but he has come up well. This will also be an important Test for Graeme Smith as he will tie Allan Border’s record of most Tests as captain.

The Lord’s pitch tends to flatten out at the match goes on and the rumour is that it is more green than usual to start this time so it might be a decent one on which to bowl first. The weather forecast is also for overcast conditions on the first day, which usually plays a big role at Lord’s. Strauss got a lot of flak for bowling first at Headingley, but it actually proved to be a decent decision. This must be weighed against the fact that the last time South Africa toured a very similar logic led to South Africa bowling first and conceding over 500. In the end, it might be an excellent toss to lose. I think this game will be one of steady partnerships and will probably be decided by whose bowlers can best instigate a collapse. England will have the confidence of having done so at Headingley, but still have a very formidable South African top order with which to contend.

Probably not the end of the KP saga

Over the weekend, Kevin Pietersen has released a video in which he completely backed down from his demands to retire from ODI cricket and play a full IPL. But he never apologised for any of his actions and he never mentioned textgate. The selectors gave him six hours to do so and when he either did or could not they dropped him anyway.

It was the right thing to do. As good as it was for Pietersen to back down from his demands, the manner in which he did so was not a matter that suggested he was trying to bring about an end to the affair. If he wanted to end things he could have said all of that directly to the ECB and also apologised for his behaviour. Instead he tried to garner public sympathy whilst simultaneously saying ‘your move’ to the ECB. I do think he deserves credit for dropping his ridiculous demands, but this was not even vaguely the right way to do it and he abjectly failed to address any of the other important issues. The ECB, for all their faults in this saga, did the right thing by telling him what he still needed to do and giving him an extra six hours in which to do so. As he did not, they were quite correct to still drop him.

The issue seems to primarily be the texts Pietersen sent to his friends in the South African dressing room and whether or not they were derogatory about Strauss and Flower. There can now be little doubt that they were and Pietersen seems absolutely incapable of actually apologising for them, or even trying to explain them. This is not, contrary to what a lot of people are saying, a matter of someone simply having a whinge to a friend about their boss. Not only was the friend in the opposition dressing room, one’s captain is not the same as one’s boss. Cricket is a team sport; it is not the same as an office environment. It is very important for the team that players show respect to their captain in a way that simply does not exist in most workplaces. Pietersen’s snub of Strauss at the press conference (which he implied was a mistake, but for which he did not apologise) and the texts he send to the opposition players may be acceptable in a standard workplace, but they are not acceptable in a dressing room. The eleven who take the field must play as a team and part of that is showing respect to the captain. Pietersen seems unable to understand that and looking at his history, never has. This is also why the people who ask why Swann was not dropped for the comments he make about Pietersen in his book or whether Strauss had said anything about Pietersen during the saga are missing the point. Pietersen isn’t the captain; Strauss is. That’s not to say they management or other players ought to be dismissive of anyone who is not the captain, but that it is a different situation. There are different rules and protocols to be observed and quite rightly. Unless Pietersen admits that his behaviour was not acceptable and actually apologises (and to the ECB, Flower and Strauss instead of the media this time) he should not be picked.

England will be without Pietersen for the Lord’s Test and contrary to a fairly popular view they most certainly can still win. Pietersen is a very good player, but he is not superman. He has a Test average under fifty which is less than Jonathan Trott and barely higher than Alastair Cook. He played a match winning innings at Colombo earlier this year, but he also cost England good positions in Abu Dhabi and at the Oval. There is no guarantee at all that he would have made a good score at Lord’s instead of getting out to a stupid shot after getting set; he does the latter with regularity. The last time England played without KP was in a must-win Test against major opposition at the Oval in 2009. England won by 197 runs. He is an asset, but he is not the only reason England win or even the main reason that England win. To say that England cannot win without Pietersen is utter lunacy.

I don’t think this is the end of the saga, however. I expect it will continue to rumble on in some form almost no matter what happens. Pietersen’s history suggests that even if he is allowed back in the future he will still do or say something at some point. In the immediate future though, there is the matter of whether he and the ECB can find enough common ground to get him to sign a new central contract. He has made this easier with his climbdown, but he will still need to answer for the texts he sent, on feels. But there is quite a bit of time left until the contracts are handed out and there is every chance that he will find his way back into the good graces of the ECB before then. I would not say it’s likely, but there is still a chance he could play against India in December. Either that, or we can expect the tour to be dominated by coverage of how Pietersen is playing in the Big Bash League instead.

Time for KP to go?

Kevin Pietersen’s feud with the ECB had been subtly simmering in the lead up to the Headingley Test and when he made 149 and took four wickets one expects it was on everyone’s mind at some level. But if not Pietersen quickly dragged it to the forefront with a press conference where, after refusing to wait for his captain, he stated that Lord’s may be his last Test. He has since added fuel to the fire by suggesting that one of his teammates is behind a Twitter parody of him. Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of that accusation (and it is ‘otherwise’) matters between Pietersen and the ECB certainly seem to be coming to a head and there is now the possibility that Lord’s won’t be his last Test, but that Headingley already was.

A lot has been made in the media and elsewhere about what the ECB ought to do. There are many suggesting that the ECB need to compromise with Pietersen, stating that having him leave the England team benefits no-one. That is all disputable and I will come back to it later, but what is clear is that the ECB have not handled the situation terribly well. I wrote some time ago why I thought they ought to have been more flexible about letting Pietersen retire from only ODIs. Since then there has been the revelation about KP wanting to miss Tests to play in the IPL that was leaked to the media. But the interesting thing is that it was leaked. Pietersen never said anything publicly and there is a reasonable suggestion that it was leaked in a (successful) attempt to discredit him. There is a strong suggestion that the ECB higher-ups are not merely not interested in compromise but are actively waging a PR war against Pietersen. Independent of anything else, this is simply not right and should stop immediately.

But Pietersen is far from blameless. His stated need to spend more time with his family and his desire to play a full season of the IPL (and now an interest in the Big Bash League as well) are mutually exclusive unless he meant that he has a second family in Dehli with whom he wants to spend more time. He claims that money is not his motivation and I do actually believe that, at least to an extent. But his motivations do not seem to be what he says they are either; it does not add up. He claims that there are ‘many issues’ to be addressed and it seems a fair bet that most of them revolve around Pietersen and his ego. The fact that he not only talked about how much the spectators want to see him play (so he wants to deny them that when it is inconvenient for him, apparently) and how it is hard to be him are telling. Part of the captaincy saga at the end of 2008 was that he wanted Andy Flower, then Peter Moores assistant, out as well. There is every chance that he is still unhappy over his failure.

I think in the end that the ECB need to take a hard stance with Pietersen. The argument that most employers would find a compromise for such an important performer does not hold weight for me. Not only is the spectator environment of a cricket team inherently unlike any other work environment, how many organisations of any type would respond positively to a request to miss two big meetings in order to do a bit of work for a high paying competitor? For all the faults of the ECB, Pietersen is being inherently unreasonable. I have never heard anyone who suggests that the ECB compromise with Pietersen actually suggest what sort of compromise could be reached; the implication often seems to be that the ECB should not compromise but cave into Pietersen’s demands. If his primary demand is to only retire from ODIs then something could probably be negotiated, but by definition Pietersen would have to make concessions as well. There can be no compromise on the issue of playing the whole IPL, in both the figurative sense that the ECB will (rightly) not budge and in the literal sense that there is no middle ground to be had. Either he plays in the whole tournament as he wants or, as is the case now, he plays in only part of it; there is no halfway between them. And as for the other issues, it is impossible to know if any compromise on them could be reached without knowing what they are. It is hard to imagine much that could be given to him without it being unfairly special treatment though. And once again, the nature of compromise would demand that KP budge from his position as well. It’s all well and good to say that the ECB should negotiate with him, but it is not that simple.

There is also the issue of team unity to be considered. Pietersen’s belief that one of his teammates is behind the Twitter parody of him is insane and paranoid on the face of it, there were Tweets sent whilst all of his teammates and the rather solid alibi of being in the field amongst other things, but it does show that there are dressing room problems. Pietersen also hinted at some in the press conference on Monday. If his teammates already dislike him, that is all the more reason for the ECB not to give him special treatment. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is a good reason for the ECB not to compromise with him at all. Dressing room unity is important and it is something at which Strauss and Flower have worked hard in the wake of the captaincy saga. But Pietersen has never really been able to fit in properly. He left Natal in a huff for England and he left Nottinghamshire by having his kit thrown off the balcony. His brief time as England captain was marked mostly by suggestions of dressing room cliques and he left Hampshire under a bit of a cloud as well. The attitude that he showed to his captain in his press conference was simply unacceptable. The other members of England’s dressing room do not seem to have any problem fitting in despite being a rather diverse bunch, so this problem seems to stem entirely from Pietersen. There is an easy solution to it.

I would not play Pietersen at Lord’s. I would not give him a swan song; I would not give him one last chance to impress. What started as a reasonable argument about workload has descended into irrationality, egotism and paranoia. There is no reason for the ECB to bend over to make accommodations for a player who only deigns to perform a few times a year and who is a disruptive influence on the dressing room throughout. No player, however good, is irreplaceable and no player is bigger than the team. If Pietersen cannot comprehend that then he must go and go immediately.

Headingley, day five: match drawn

I said yesterday the match would be drawn and so it was. But that would be too easy and what should have been the least interesting day of the match (and for the first session made it look absolutely certain to be) ended up the most exciting. England went out in the morning looking to instigate a quick collapse. They had a decent go, the bowling was good, but South Africa really had the rub of the green with possible catches evading fielders and the ball beating the bat entirely. They also came off for rain a couple of times and it was not until a couple of overs before a late lunch that England finally shifted South Africa’s makeshift opening partnership. Incredibly, it was Kevin Pietersen to Jacques Rudolph again. Pietersen bowled four balls to Rudolph in the match and dismissed him twice.

A few days ago, I said that I thought England had made the right call by bowling four seamers as Swann had not bowled well at Headingley and there was not any turn on the first four days. Today, however, there was turn and Pietersen found it. Whilst I still do see the logic of the decision, it is now clear that it was indeed the wrong one. Pietersen got good turn, good bounce and three wickets in the innings. The only caveat to those wickets was that one of them, the dismissal of Smith, was very questionable and Amla’s dismissal was nothing whatsoever to do with spin as he tamely hit a full toss straight to cover. The Smith dismissal was an interesting one as he was given out caught at short leg and discussed it with his partner before deciding to review it. The replay showed that he had hit his boot, but the actual view of where the ball either did or did not hit the bat was obscured by James Taylor. If one was to make a decision based off that alone one would say not out, but there was certainly not enough evidence to overturn the umpire’s call of out and so it stayed. To his credit, Smith took the decision with good grace.

That dismissal cost South Africa in an odd way later though as it meant that South Africa were out of reviews. This was very unlucky for South Africa as I have seen teams get the review back in similar situations in the past and I am not entirely sure why South Africa did not. When Broad then trapped AB de Villiers lbw, South Africa could not review and the replay showed that the ball was sliding down leg. That said, it looked plumb live and there is actually every chance it would not have been reviewed. Unfortunately we won’t ever know, but regardless of whether or not it would have been reviewed it was a poor decision by the umpire which South Africa did not have the opportunity to correct.

This was the start of a fearsome spell by Stuart Broad that very much livened up the match. He had previously started to bowl too short again, but here he remembered to pitch the ball up and try to hit the stumps and he was rewarded. De Villiers may have got a poor decision, but he was still entirely beaten by the delivery and ended up playing all around a fairly straight one. JP Duminy was then trapped lbw (correctly this time) to a very similarly full and straight delivery that he played poorly. A few overs later, Vernon Philander departed to one that had nipped back and hit him in front of off. This is what Broad does when he is bowling at his best and it is so important for England that he remembers to do so. Only once he establishes that danger for the batsmen can he use the short ball to any effect, as he subsequently did to get rid of Kallis. Broad finished with an excellent and well deserved five-fer.

Broad’s heroics led to the best part of the day and possibly the match: Smith and Strauss, two of the most defensive captains in world cricket, had a mini contest to see which one could grab some sort of initiative and mental edge over the other heading into the Lord’s Test. Smith declared with nine down in a purely symbolic gesture (Tahir is very much a number eleven) but the gesture was clear. In response, Strauss juggled the England batting order and sent Kevin Pietersen out to open the run chase. Despite this, however, neither side still really went all out for it. South Africa had a reasonably attacking field, but only about the standard for the start of an innings and England, despite being up with or close to the required rate for a long period still sent Trott in at number four. Trott is a good ODI batsman, and actually was scoring at over a run a ball for the start of his innings, but it was still more of a defensive move than anything else. England’s entire approach actually seemed quite muddled. Prior, a very attacking option, came in after Trott and it was only when he was finally out that England stopped going for it. Taylor and Broad never got to bat at all though. As nice as it was to see England try to win the match, the execution was poor and one was left with the impression that England could have come a lot closer.

In a way, England have already lost the series. Whilst they can still get out with a draw, their excellent home series winning streak (seven consecutive home series won, dating back to the last time South Africa toured) is over and all they can do is try to make it a less impressive unbeaten streak. They will also still have not managed to beat South Africa and put to rest the discussion of which side is better. They have only themselves to blame for this; not entirely because of the actual results (though obviously that as well) but because the series is only three Tests. This is always a possibility of a three Test series; the ECB could have and should have scheduled another Test and now it will cost them.

Headingley, day three: England 351-5

Today was an ‘exciting’ day of Test cricket. Not entirely in the usual sense of a tight run-chase or some tense bat v ball contests (though to an extent those as well), but in the much more simple sense of Kevin Pietersen trying to hit the South African bowlers into Lancashire. It was an absolutely staggering innings; he actually played fairly sensibly for a long period, but then South Africa tried to bounce him out. It was an odd tactic as the ball was fairly old, but one could see the logic of playing on Pietersen’s ego. The execution was all wrong, however. South Africa only bowled bouncers and the pitch and ball were simply not quick enough to really provide a problem. The field setting telegraphed the intent and Pietersen had time to happily smash the ball to the rope. Not once did South Africa try to slip in a yorker which might have done for him the way he was sitting on the back foot. Pietersen simply fed off the short stuff and was at his imperious best by the time the new ball was taken. South Africa would have probably thought, I certainly did, that the extra pace and movement would lead to KP missing one of his extravagant strokes, but it never happened. The ball went even faster off the bat and Pietersen both lofted Dale Steyn over his head for six and flat batted one back at Steyn’s head. It was an absolutely staggering innings, utterly majestic. I still do not believe that Pietersen comes through often enough to justify either his ego or his stupid shots, but it is lovely to watch when it comes off.

At the other end for most Pietersen’s innings was the debutant James Taylor. It is not an easy way to make a debut with England under a bit of pressure against the very good South African attack and KP’s extravagance at the other end cannot have helped matters. He played with excellent composure, however, to get to 34 from over a hundred balls. He was finally bowled through the gate by Morkel which was disappointing, but he looked Test quality. He played some lovely shots and worked his way through a difficult period. He did not go on to make the big score that would have guaranteed his place for Lord’s, however, and England will of course hope that he does not have to bat in the second innings. It’s hard to know what the selectors will do if Bopara makes himself available for the last Test, but I would definitely have Taylor in the squad for Lord’s on the back of this.

Pietersen’s innings really put England back into contention after a fairly poor first part of the day. England never collapsed to put them in the mire, but a lot of the batsmen got in and got out. Strauss got a good ball and Cook got an okay one, but Trott and Bell both played horrific drives away from the body to get out. They all made some runs (though only eleven for Bell) but it was just not enough, especially from Trott. Trott basically built his career around not chasing balls outside off, but this is not the first time he has got out doing so this year. I don’t know what has caused this change from him and it could be as simple as a dip in form. That does happen. But I worry that he has been put under so much pressure to score faster in ODIs that it is affecting his Test game.

England are very much in this match, they go into stumps on 351-5 and trailing by 68. There is not a lot of true batting to come, but KP and Prior are still in and if South Africa can not dislodge them early they will fancy getting England all the way to level terms. England still have Bresnan, who batted well at the Oval, and the mercurial Broad to bat so England could actually get a decent lead if South Africa do not bounce back tomorrow morning. Even if that does not happen, however, South Africa have some injury concerns. Alviro Petersen has a grade one hamstring injury and will only bat if necessary and Smith landed rather heavily on his knee whilst fielding near the close. It’s not yet clear how badly his injured, but South Africa will really want him not only fit but opening. Their other batsmen are talented, but facing the new ball is a tough ask and South Africa will be at a distinct disadvantage if Rudolph has to open (as I am guessing he would) with a non-specialist. Right now all three results are still possible and it should all be very interesting tomorrow.

Headingley, day one: SA 262-5

England, for once, showed some admirable aggression today. No, they did not finally play five bowlers. But they did something similar and played four quick bowlers leaving out Swann. Partly due to this and partly due to the conditions looking bowler friendly, Strauss also opted to bowl first upon winning the toss. There was plenty of criticism of this both at the time and subsequently, but I think it was the right move. I would have preferred five bowlers with Swann included, but knowing that was never going to happen this was the next best thing. Headingley tends to favour seamers and Swann in particular has never been effective there. England have to attack in this Test; they have to find a way to win and I do think that the best way to do that was to select the four bowlers who would be getting the most out of the conditions. If I had to make a change I actually might have brought Onions in, who probably would have used the conditions very well also. The same applies to the decision to bowl first, especially once it had been decided to play four bowlers. The conditions were cloudy for a lot of the day and should be so tomorrow as well and bowling first gave us an excellent chance to try to put South Africa on the back foot. It did not come off as well as Strauss would have liked, but I definitely do not think it in any way backfired (at least not yet) either.

The first part of the day was dominated by the controversy about Steven Finn being ‘dead-balled’ for hitting the stumps with his knee during his delivery stride. This is something that Finn does with some regularity, but for the first time the batsmen, Graeme Smith and Alviro Petersen, complained to the umpire that it was ‘distracting’ and Finn was informed that the ball would henceforth be declared dead whenever the bails were dislodged. All of the actions did take place in accordance with the laws and the umpires did apply this consistently; both an edge to slip and a pair of boundaries were discounted so one certainly would not say that Finn was treated unfairly. That said, the fact that no other batsman has ever complained about Finn, the fact that there was actually no precedent of any batsmen having complained about a myriad of bowlers in the past who regularly hit the stumps and the fact that Smith was not so distracted that he could not dispatch a couple of the dead balls to the boundary suggests that the complaint was borne less out of distraction and more out of a desire to put Finn off. I have a lot of trouble believing that it was anything other than gamesmanship by Smith.

England did not do as well with the ball as they would have liked, but I do think that the general suggestion that by bowling first England should have South Africa all out by now are a bit harsh. I don’t think bowling first should be considered as radical a tactic as it is often is and if South Africa had one won the toss and batted I think most would say that it was about honours even now. Perhaps a slight edge to South Africa. Certainly England are still very much in the match. Alviro Petersen is still there overnight after making an excellent hundred today (as an interesting aside: his last three Test innings are now 156, 0 and 124*), but there is not a lot of other batting left. Of the other five batsmen who are yet to be dismissed, three are tailenders and two are Rudolph and Duminy. Rudolph is a good county player, but does not fill one with confidence at Test level and Duminy was actually selected after Rudolph. This does not mean that they can not or will not score runs, of course, but England will fancy their chances of getting through them pretty quickly tomorrow morning.

With the rate South Africa batted today they can probably expect to get to about 350 by lunch tomorrow and they will probably be thinking of 400 as something of a minimum total for the innings. Whether they can get that far will likely depend on Petersen; I expect that if he bats through to lunch South Africa will have a great chance of getting a score well over 400. One of England’s weaknesses in the past few years has been bowling out sides when a top order batsman has been shepherding the tail and even if the other players only bat to their fairly low averages alongside Petersen it should be enough to put South Africa in control of the match. On the other side of that coin though, if England can get him early tomorrow then they will have a great chance to knock South Africa over very cheaply. The second new ball is only seven overs old and the bowlers will be fresh as they always are at the start of a day. But regardless of South Africa’s total, I suspect tomorrow will mostly be about whether England can bat properly this time. It is that which will decide the match.

The Oval, day four: Eng 102-4

Spare a thought for Alviro Petersen. Two days ago he got a peach of a delivery from James Anderson; it which swung back in at him, beat the inside edge of the bat and trapped him plumb leg before for an eleven ball duck. In the 48 hours after that, South Africa lost just one wicket and three batsmen all scored centuries. One of those batsmen was Hashim Amla who remained patience personified at the crease and went on to record the first triple hundred in South Africa’s history. It was an absolutely amazing innings and it was only as he neared the mark that he started to show any sign of nerves. He became only the second batsman ever to score more than 300 at the Oval, with the other being Len Hutton in that famous match against Australia. The 13 hours and ten minutes he spent making Amla unbeaten 311 was also only seven minutes short of the time Hutton was at the crease in 1938. That was not the only significant mark of the day as South Africa’s 637-2 declared was the first time England have conceded over 600 in an innings since the 2009 Cardiff Test.

England were given exactly four sessions to bat as South Africa declared at tea. It was a declaration that was perhaps only aggressive by Graeme Smith’s standards, but it was very clever as it meant that runs would be important as well. He gave England an incentive to try to score the 252 needed to make South Africa bat again. It really should have been possible. The pitch had been sucking the life out of the Test for most of four days and the batsmen had only struggled under cloud. England, however, promptly did their best to make the pitch look much spicier than it had ever been. Cook did get a good ball to get out and Trott got a decent one, though he followed it a bit. Kevin Pietersen threw his wicket away again. He had already offered a dolly of a chance to Kallis at slip that had been put down when he got a straight one from Morkel and somehow played inside the line to a ball that knocked over middle stump. He played the sort of defensive shot that I have been known to play and that is not a compliment. It was simply appalling. It was Strauss’ dismissal, the last of the day, that was the real blow to England. Strauss was the last batsman who one would back to bat deep in the innings, but he went out top edging a sweep to Tahir. It was a bad shot, but to his and Tahir’s credit it was a bad shot borne of very good bowling. The previous two balls from Tahir had really leapt out of the rough and it was clear that Strauss felt that he had to find a counter. To be fair, he was probably right; there was every chance he would have got out if he had stayed as he was too.

England’s position at stumps is one that looks hopeless. They still trail by exactly 150 runs and have lost the three batsmen most likely to grind out an innings to save the match. Ravi Bopara and Ian Bell are the two not out batsmen and they are England’s last two middle order players. Tomorrow will tell us a lot about whether or not the selectors knew what they were doing in selecting Bopara. He and Bell simply must find a way to build a partnership. There is still a chance that England could at least make South Africa bat again, though I think the odds of England actually drawing the Test are low. England will have to have Bell, Bopara and Prior erase almost all of the deficit and then hope that the pressure to get wickets shifts to South Africa enough that Bresnan, Broad and Swann can build a lead big enough that South Africa do not have time to chase it. Tomorrow is supposed to be the best day for batting in the Test, but England will simply have to do much better than they did today.

There are a few causes for English optimism. One is of course that the last time these two side played each other, England managed to cling on for nine-down draws twice. Another relates to the earlier alluded to Cardiff Test of 2009. It was the last time that England conceded 600 in an innings and the scores are quite similar to those so far in this Test. At Cardiff, England needed 240 to make Australia bat again and found themselves 46-4 and later 70-5. That ended in a draw, though England did not have as much time to bat then. A little bit farther back, however, England have actually not lost any of the last three matches in which we have conceded over 600 in an innings.

All of that could be construed as simply grasping at straws though and to be honest that is exactly what it is. The history and stats are interesting, but tomorrow it will come down to whether or not England’s remaining seven batsmen can find a way to keep out the vaunted South African attack for the better part of ninety overs. The result will say a lot about both sides.

The Oval, day one: Eng 267-3

The first hour or so of the match went roughly as I expected. But that was about it. Of course, I did not expect Morne Morkel to open the bowling and trap Strauss lbw with his fourth ball of the day. But seeing the bowlers on top in slightly tricky conditions was nothing surprising. It was after that, as that South Africa’s excellent attack started to look toothless, that my expectations started to look misplaced. Morkel was really only accurate with that one delivery; he was quite wayward overall. Steyn was down on both pace and aggression. But perhaps the most disappointing was Philander. He took the new ball with Morkel, but he never looked special. That is by no means to say that he is not, or that he will not come back later in the Test or series, but for today he was a long way short of the form that saw him take 51 wickets in seven Tests. Tahir meantime was just as much of a non-entity as I expected he would be; he was only notable for getting enough turn to suggest that it will be a tough to bat on days four and five.

There were a few possible reasons for the performance from South Africa. The obvious suggestion is that they were undercooked. They did not get a lot of time to bowl in their warmups and when they did do so they looked slightly poor. The conditions did not help them as much as they might have liked either. The pitch was flat and although the start was delayed due to rain the sun came out around lunchtime and by and large stayed out. The predicted occasional interruptions never materialised. And not to be ignored is the fact that South Africa were quickly up against two very good batsmen in Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott. The two batted together for 56.4 overs and put on 170 for the second wicket. Once the shine had come off the ball a bit, South Africa very quickly looked like they did not have any backup plans. They were reduced to bowling well outside off stump in the hope that Cook or Trott would go fishing. Technically it did work as that was how Trott was finally out, but almost anyone who has ever watched Trott and Cook bat could tell you that if it was going to work it would take a long time. A lot of people found this partnership ‘boring’, but I thought it was actually very absorbing. It never felt like nothing was going to happen partly because Trott or Cook would occasionally play a beautiful shot to the rope, but also because it always felt like South Africa might have something special in reserve and it was a long time before one felt that England were even relatively comfortable after the early wicket.

Trott did finally fish at a ball that was too far outside off and edged it behind after tea. It brought Kevin Pietersen in with the score 170-2, but even with the match seemingly well set up for him he had a very odd innings. He was very scratchy to start; at one point he had scored six off 22 deliveries and a lot of those a bit streakily. He did settle down though against Tahir and looked very well set to make it to stumps and maybe even get some runs off the new ball. Except before that happened he tried to pull a short ball from Kallis that was not in the right position and all he could do was strangle it behind on 42. It was a terrible end to an innings where he really should have gone on and dominated. The pitch was flat and the attack was flagging, not to mention his motivation playing South Africa and after the events of last week. It was really a classic KP dismissal. It left England still in a good position, but needing to negotiate a tricky period before stumps.

Given that it is a fairly traditional Oval pitch, England are probably looking at 450 as being almost a minimum from this position. But the ball is still relatively new, only nine overs old, and the South African pacemen will be fresh tomorrow morning. The first hour will thus be very important; South Africa almost have to use that time to take a wicket. If Cook and Bell survive and get settled then South Africa could be staring down the barrel of a huge total. Alastair Cook has some remarkable stats after going to a hundred: he actually averages 180 in his first 19 tons. Of his last six (since the start of the Ashes) he has two doubles and only one dismissal between 100 and 130. Ian Bell has been in good form so far this summer, and indeed last summer as well, and then there is the English lower order with which to contend. If Prior and Bresnan come in sometime tomorrow afternoon with England already up to 400 and a licence to play their shots against an old ball they could add a lot of runs very quickly. The best hope for South Africa will be to break this nascent partnership early tomorrow morning and then send Bopara back cheaply. South Africa can keep themselves in the match if they do that, but they will have a lot of work to do even afterward. They probably have to keep England under 425 to have a decent chance.

Regardless of England’s final total, there are three things on which to keep an eye tomorrow: first is Steyn and Philander. Neither looked at the peak of their game today and tomorrow should give a good indication of how much of that was just rust. The pitch is still flat, but they will have to improve. The second is Ravi Bopara. Anyone who reads this blog with regularity will already know that I do not rate him, but he has (another) chance to prove me not-entirely-right tomorrow. He had mixed fortunes against India in a similar situation at the Oval last summer, but he is less likely to be declared on this time. At Edgbaston, however, he made only seven after watching a long partnership. Lastly: England should have a chance to bowl at some point. South Africa will almost certainly be under some sort of scoreboard pressure when they come out and they have to bat with the same caution that Cook and Trott did.

England v South Africa preview

The most eagerly awaited Test series in a year. The most ridiculously shortened Test series since the last time South Africa played a major opponent. The winner of the series will finish as number one in the world, though if South Africa win by one Test they will be top by only 0.16 points. A draw will see England maintain their position at the top of the table, but by a reduced margin.

The teams are almost impossibly close on paper. The series will feature the two best bowling attacks in the world and arguably the two best bowlers in the world in Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson. Steyn has had the better career and Jimmy has a long way to go to catch him, but over the last few years they have been on level terms with Jimmy actually faring slightly better. Steyn will have the support of the also brilliant but somewhat overshadowed Morne Morkel as well Vernon Philander. It is the last of these who I think will be most interesting to watch. He had an incredible start to his Test career, becoming the second fastest all time to fifty wickets. He is yet to really have an ‘off’ Test. But he is also yet to face top quality opposition. Of his seven Tests, five have been against Sri Lanka or New Zealand and the other two were against an Australian side in a bit of disarray. That said, he still took 5-15 in the famous 47 all out and regardless of the strength of the opposition that is quite impressive. He has, however, not quite managed to replicate that form with Somerset in the Championship. In five matches he has taken 23 wickets at 21.34. No one would argue that is anything but good, however it must be viewed in the context of the incredibly bowling friendly conditions of the early season; most sides would have been in with a chance of victory if they scored 213. It is also, rather surprisingly, a third again higher than his Test average! It will thus be very interesting to see how he gets on.

For England, Jimmy is backed up by Stuart Broad and one of Tim Bresnan, Steven Finn or Graham Onions. Bresnan is the presumable choice, though Finn and Onions are good injury replacements and (although it is very unlikely) possible fourth seamers if England decide to go that route. It is the new ball attack of Broad and Anderson that will be England’s main weapon, however. Broad is actually almost as dangerous as Jimmy as he is now the bowler that everyone expected him to be from when he first came into the side. In the past twelve months has has played ten Tests, four of them on flat Asian wickets, and taken 54 wickets at an average under 19. It’s not quite what Philander managed to do, but it is close and it is far better than what Morkel has done in the same period of time (26 wickets in eight Tests at 29). How England handle the third seamer position will be an interesting to watch. Tim Bresnan had a shaky start to the summer, but finished the series against the West Indies well whilst Finn and Onions did not manage to use the innings that they got in the third Test to demand inclusion in this series. Bresnan also strengthens the batting and as I have said before I think it strengthens it so much that England should play five bowlers. Even without the bonus of his batting, however, Bresnan is a more than capable third seamer: he bowls quick, he bowls a ‘heavy ball’ and he can get the ball to reverse swing.

That’s how the seamers align and taken as groups there is almost nothing to choose between them. Over the last few years Anderson has matched Steyn, Philander has outdone Broad with the ball and Bresnan has outdone Morkel with both bat and ball. England probably have a slight advantage due to Philander’s inexperience. Where England have a large advantage, however, is in spin. South Africa will be bringing Imran Tahir to England. Whilst he is a considerable step up from Paul Harris, he is not a match for Graeme Swann. (It’s also a personal disappointment as I think the ‘team full of Rhodesians’ joke I would have made is funnier than the ‘team full of Pakistanis’ joke I will be making instead.) The group stats support the notion that England have an advantage, but a slight one: England’s team bowling average over the last two years is 26.52 as opposed to South Africa’s 28.74, whilst the teams are neck and neck in ‘notable’ scores. England have bowled their opponents out for under 200 eleven times in 24 matches in the past two years whilst conceding 400 or more four times. In the same time period, South Africa have played 13 Tests and bowled their opponent out for under 200 six times whilst conceding two scores over 400. Interestingly, in this time period neither team has lost when conceding 400 but have each one once after doing so.

So it’s advantage England by a nose in the comparison of bowling attacks, but each side have very good batsmen as well. South Africa have the formidable Grame Smith opening and boast Hashim Amla, AB de Villiers and Jacques Kallis farther down the order. The first three each average just short of fifty apiece and each over the course of fairly long Test careers. Kallis averages even higher, almost 57 in his career, but oddly has never fared well in England. In twelve Tests he only averages 29.30 with a solitary century. It will be interesting to see if he can, in what will likely be his last tour of England, turn those numbers around a bit. It will also be important for South Africa, who already have a couple of holes in their top and middle order. The injury to Boucher means that Jean-Paul Duminy will come into the side and it was already assumed that both Alviro Petersen and Jacques Rudolph will play. Both had decent series in New Zealand (the latter scoring 156 in the last Test), but apart from that none of those three have looked particularly imposing at Test level. Petersen and Rudolph have also both played in the County Championship this year and neither have been impressive. Petersen scored a big century, but it was against Glamorgan and his other ten innings yielded only ninety runs between them. Rudolph did slightly better, but for all his starts he only passed fifty once in ten innings. It also remains to be seen how AB de Villiers will react to taking the gloves. He has batted very well when keeping wicket in ODIs, but this will be the fourth time he has kept in Tests and in the first three matches he averaged only 22.

England, by contrast, have no real stars. Only Jonathan Trott averages over fifty and his average has been going steadily downward since he first established himself. However, England also have fewer weaknesses. The only batsman to average under forty is Ravi Bopara and that is offset somewhat by the fact that Tim Bresnan at number eight actually averages over forty. At the top of the order, Andrew Strauss has scored three first class centuries already this summer with his an unbeaten 127 in his most recent innings against Notts. Alastair Cook has lost the form that saw him dominate attacks last year, but he still had a decent series against the West Indies. Ian Bell has had a good summer, but as far as the middle order goes all the attention will be on Kevin Pietersen. Embroiled in controversy since retiring from pyjama cricket earlier this summer and making some rather questionable demands of the England management, he has nonetheless been in excellent form with the bat. Most recently was his jaw-dropping innings at Guildford where he treated a skilled Lancastrian attack as though they were a team of under-elevens. He will go into the South Africa series with a point to prove and whilst it could result in more rash shots for cheap dismissals, there is also every chance that it will drive him to have a huge series. KP is someone who has tended to perform when under personal pressure and saves his best for the big stage. This is a big stage and he is under pressure. South Africa will be well advised to get to him early in his innings.

England also have an advantage down the order. Whilst AB de Villiers is a better batsman overall than Prior, he is still a part time ‘keeper. Prior is much more reliable with the gloves and it remains to be seen which de Villiers will show up with the bat. But farther down is where England could really put some pressure on South Africa. England’s last four batsmen, ie: numbers eight through eleven, have a cumulative average of 101. The corresponding average for South Africa is only 58. That is a potential extra 43 runs in each innings for England, an entire extra batsman’s worth. The upshot for me is that South Africa will probably have to get an above average performance by some of their more unheralded batsmen or a very good series from someone like Smith. Even if Kallis shows his true class, I do not think South Africa will be able to get away with having any failing batsmen.

The series may well come down to little things. Neither side have had ideal preparations. England were playing ODIs, but at least winning. South Africa, meantime, did not look too impressive in their pair of tour matches and suffered the loss of Boucher in that time. Both captains are very defensive minded, especially Smith who has previously delayed declarations absurdly long. I don’t think either side will want to be in a position of having to force a victory; it will play against the natural tendency of both captains. This will favour England at first, as they only need a draw to retain the number one ranking, so this is something South Africa will want to negate early. And then there is the weather. So much time has been lost to rain in this summer both in the international and county matches. South Africa did not play the rain particularly well against New Zealand; Smith will need to take it into account better in England.

As for a prediction, the two sides are so close that it is very hard to say. The winner may simply be whichever side manages to have fewer poor days. I think a lot will come down to whether one player, probably a batsman given the skill of the attacks, can step up and dominate the series. For South Africa that may be Smith having a series like he did in 2003; for England it may be something special from KP or a captain’s series from an in-form Strauss. With the series being as short as it is, whatever numerical result is reached is unlikely to reflect the play itself (unless one side simply fails to show up of course). As outlined above, I think where there are edges to be had most of them go to England. With that and the lighter pressure on them, something with which South Africa notoriously struggle, I think England will win the series 2-0. I would say 2-1, but I don’t think the weather will co-operate enough to get three results. However it finishes, though, it should be a cracker and I cannot wait for it to start.