LV=CC week eleven roundup

It seems like it has been ages since there has been any Championship cricket. In fact it has only been a month, but a month of only white ball cricket at both the domestic and international level is a long time. Unfortunately it ended up a fairly uneventful week with all four first division matches finishing as draws and so far two of the three second division matches have also been drawn with Northants’ match against Glamorgan only through the second day.

There has been some movement in the tables, however, with Warwickshire getting enough bonus points to move into the top spot of Division One. The Bears have managed this with a match in hand against second-placed Nottinghamshire. Middlesex also picked up enough points to become the third side to 100 in the year, despite being bowled out for an Australia-esque 98 in their first innings. Whilst still outsiders for the title; they remain in the hunt. There was no movement at the bottom of the table with Worcestershire drawing with Durham and both sides remaining in the relegation zone. Division Two leaders Derbyshire did not play this week but Yorkshire, despite a brilliant 222* from Joe Root, did not have time to significantly close the gap. Their draw against Hampshire coupled with Kent also not playing this week was enough to keep Yorkshire in the promotion zone, though they are not secure there. Kent are only seven points behind having played one fewer match and both Hampshire and Northants (who are 336-5 after two days against Glamorgan) are also within a victory of going second. That should make for a very interesting battle over the last two months of the season.

For Lancashire it was another week of disappointment. There was some worry that the month long break may have broken the good form that they had started to show, but fortunately this proved not to be the case. Lancashire put up their highest score of the season with 485-7 against Surrey at Guildford including centuries from Paul Horton and Steven Croft, the latter an unbeaten 154. Lancs made a good start to the bowling as well, with Chapple hitting Rory Burns’ off stump with the first ball of the innings. But with Surrey on 49-2, Lancs ran into Kevin Pietersen. With a fairly flat pitch and small boundaries he hit an absolutely staggering 234* off only 190 deliveries. Whilst Lancashire have had some trouble finishing sides off this year, this time it was not something that can be put at the feet of the bowlers; Pietersen was simply in unbelievable form. It is still a bit troubling for Lancashire, however, that we have now been in very good positions in each of our last four matches and have only managed to win one of them. The weather has been a factor, but our bowling has been surprisingly flat and it has cost us a good chance to move up the table. We still have some good opportunities coming up, but there are now only six matches left in the season and we still sit sixth in the table (and have played more matches than every other team).

KP’s knock was, of course, the highlight of the week, but it was a good round overall for England players. Andrew Strauss scored exactly fifty of Middlesex’s 98 all out in the first innings (the only other double digit score was Gareth Berg’s 32) and 127 not out in the second. Certainly worrying form for the South Africans ahead of the first Test. Ian Bell also scored 57 for Warwickshire.

England v West Indies ratings

England were not troubled in their 2-0 victory over the West Indies, but they were some way short of masterful. They were a bit sloppy, especially in the last match, and they conceded almost a third again as many runs in this series (1549) as they did in the three Tests they lost in the UAE (1178). The good news for England that in they were even worse at the start of last summer, conceding 1606 runs against Sri Lanka, with no effects in the second series.

The West Indies looked like an improving side. Against Australia they never gave up, despite the regular horror-sessions. Here they always looked on the verge of collapsing with the bat, but actually did so only once. They let things get away occasionally with the ball, but did well at regrouping in between sessions and fighting back after intervals. Overall, they were outclassed by England, but can go home with their heads held high. (Or at least they could if they did not still have to play a bunch of pointless ODIs.)

My individual marks (out of ten):

England
Andrew Strauss* – 9
Came into the first Test at Lord’s with ‘questions’ about his place in the side and responded with a majestic first innings century. Made just one in a tricky spell in before stumps in the second innings, but then came back with a bigger hundred and at a vital time for the team. He finished at the top of the England run-scorer list and second in average. His captaincy was poor by his standards, with the players often looking unmotivated and the field settings characteristically negative.

Alastair Cook – 6
A deceptively decent series by the vice-captain. Failed in the first innings in each match, only scoring 54 runs in the three innings. Stepped up when required in the second innings, however. Contributed with an excellent and all but match-winning 79 in the second innings of the first Test and saw England home with an unbeaten 43 in the second Test.

Jonathan Trott – 3
Got himself in a few times, but only managed a solitary fifty from the first Test. Did enough to still average over thirty in the series, but it was not really enough from the number three and almost half of his runs came in relatively easy situations. A disappointing series for such a good player, his Test average is now only a little bit above fifty.

Kevin Pietersen – 7
Made more headlines off the pitch than on it, but still had a good series. Only had one failure with the bat, in the second innings of the first Test, which he followed up with consecutive half-centuries. Put Shillingford and Narine to the sword in the second and third Tests. Had a century in his sights twice, but got out slightly loosely on both occasions.

Ian Bell – 9
In four innings this series, he hit three fifties. Two of them were unbeaten and one of those was a match-winning knock in the first Test. The only time he failed to go past sixty was when he fell for 22 in the second Test. Apart from that, he looked majestic and can count himself unlucky not to have scored a century. He was stranded with the tail in the first Test and was denied by the rain in the third.

Jonny Bairstow – 0 1
Looked talented, but never passed twenty in three innings. Undone by Roach in the first two Tests, then by Best in the third. Deserves another chance against South Africa, but looks unlikely to get one. Addendum: I have accepted the suggestion given to me that he deserves one point for the brilliant run out he effected at Lord’s.

Matt Prior† – 6
Excellent as always behind the stumps, but only got two innings with the bat. Did not contribute significantly in either of them, but has the excuse of twice coming to the wicket when needing to score relatively quick runs.

Tim Bresnan – 7
A series of two halves for Bresnan. Was arguably fortunate to have even been selected for the first two Tests after looking poor in the last Test in Sri Lanka and very poor at Lord’s. Kept up that form for the first part of the second Test, despite getting some tail-end wickets on the second morning. Then showed why he was selected with a some vital runs in England’s innings and then blew away the West Indies. Finished with twelve wickets in the series, second most for either side.

Stuart Broad – 9
Was perhaps slightly flattered by his eleven wickets in the first Test, but it is very hard for someone to luck into such a feat. For comparison, no West Indian bowler took more than ten wickets in the entire series. Highest wicket taker in the series with 14 and also contributed some useful runs in the second Test.

Graeme Swann – 3
Found life difficult on pitches that were not taking appreciable turn and was only a real threat in the second innings of the first Test. Scored thirty in the first innings of that Test as well.

James Anderson – 8
Showed his value most highly in the third Test when he was rested and England were rudderless. His nine wickets in the first two Tests were insufficient reward for the skill with which he bowled, though he did not get the same swing he got last summer.

Graham Onions – 7
Only got one innings of one Test, but looked very good therein. Had the best bowling figures of the innings with 4-88 and looked much like the Onions of old. Unlikely to be picked against South Africa, but will have put himself in the selectors minds.

Steven Finn – 5
Was not picked until the third Test, despite widespread suggestion that he ought to be. Bowled well in the one innings in which he got the chance, but was a bit wayward on the fourth morning. Looks very good, but perhaps still not quite the finished product and may have slipped behind Onions in the pecking order. Made an amusing 0* as nightwatchman.

West Indies
Darren Sammy* – 7
Continues to get the most out of his side, some feat given the massive internal problems of the West Indies. Showed his batting skill in scoring a maiden hundred in the second Test, but badly threw his wicket away in the other two. His bowling was only that of a useful fourth seamer and nothing more. Should definitely be happy with his efforts, however.

Adrian Barath – 4
Not a great series for the West Indian opener, but not a dreadful won. Stuck around well in both innings of the first Test, but never managed to pass fifty and went cheaply in both innings of the second. Comfortably the best of the top three.

Keiran Powell – 2
Three single figure scores in five innings and a top score of only 33 make this a series to forget. His only saving grace was that he did manage to drag his innings out and wear the shine off the ball to protect his colleagues.

Kirk Edwards – 0
Eight runs total in four innings and seven of them came in the first innings of the second Test. For comparison, Fidel Edwards even managed to score twelve. Dropped for the third Test, needs to do a lot of work to come back.

Darren Bravo – 3
Another top order batsman to struggle, he made it into the twenties three times, but not once into the thirties. All the more disappointing after being considered the second best batsman in the order coming into the series. Comprehensively outshone by batsman down the order from him, though was unlucky to be run out by his partner in the first innings of the series.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul – 8
Another good series in England for the West Indian wall. Missed the third Test due to injury, but passed fifty (and came close to a hundred) in both innings at Lord’s, plus a 46 in the first innings at Trent Bridge. His only failure was when playing an uncharacteristically wild hook in what would be his last innings of the series.

Marlon Samuels – 10
Could almost do no wrong. Out to a loose drive in the first innings at Lord’s, he then seemed to feed off Chanderpaul’s patience (with whom he frequently batted) and after that his lowest score in the rest of the series was 76. Did not look overly threatening with the ball, but did enough to pick up five wickets and was a decent second spin option.

Denesh Ramdin† – 4
Scored a century remembered mostly for his puerile celebration in the last Test, but was very underwhelming in the first two. Should be aware that a ton in a rain-ruined dead rubber against a second choice attack is not enough to compensate for three single figure scores in the previous four innings. Was below average with the gloves, but not horrifically so.

Kemar Roach – 8
Some ferocious new ball bowling saw him top the list of West Indian wicket takers despite picking up an injury and missing the third Test. His top moment was causing some worry in the gloom at the start of the England run chase in the first Test, but was class throughout.

Fidel Edwards – 1
His mark matches the number of wickets he took in the first Test, before being dropped. Most notable for the ridiculous design cut into his hair.

Shannon Gabriel – 5
Unfortunately injured after the first Test, but looked good when he played. Someone who should boost the Windies when he returns.

Ravi Rampaul – 7
Came in for the second Test and looked quite good. Got the ball to swing and nip about off the seam. Got some important top order wickets in the first innings, especially that of KP when England looked set for a huge total and dismissed Cook twice in the series.

Shane Shillingford – 1
Desperately unlucky to have only played in one Test. Left out due to a preference for an all-seam attack at Lord’s and due to a preference for hype in the third. Did not look terribly good on an admittedly flat pitch at Trent Bridge, however as KP and Strauss scored at will off him.

Assad Fudadin – 2
Hard to say a lot about a 110 ball 28, apart from it being twenty more runs that Kirk Edwards had scored at that position in the entire series before then. No worse than any other member of the West Indian top four.

Tino Best – 7
Came in for just the last Test, but what a Test he had! Made the highest ever score by a number eleven with an aggressive but technically sound innings. Deserved a century, but suffered a rush of blood on 95. Also picked up some wickets in England’s abbreviated response.

Sunil Narine – 0
Victim of a flat pitch and two of the best players of spin in Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen, but his 0-70 still did not come close to living up to the massive hype that surrounded his belated arrival. His ‘mystery’ could not even fool the number eleven, Steven Finn.

Edgbaston, day one three, WI 280-8

The good news was that we finally had some cricket today. The bad news is that the cricket itself made a result much less likely. It was a day that would not have been out of place in either of the first two matches. England were the better side and on top at stumps, but were also sloppy throughout and should have been on top by more. The West Indies were outplayed and whilst they did give some of their wickets away, they did not just capitulate.

It was already known that England were resting Anderson, but they sprung a slight surprise by resting Broad and thus letting Finn, Onions and Bresnan all bowl. As far as bowling went, this worked okay. All three took wickets and all looked good. Anderson, however, was missed in the slips, where Bell put down two of the three chances that went to him. To be fair to Bell, he is not usually a slip fielder, but it did raise the question of why it was Bell in the slips and not Baristow, who keeps wicket for Yorkshire.

On the whole, all three seamers bowled well. There was the surprise of Bresnan taking the new ball instead of Finn, who is more suited to it, but this was rectified by the time the second new ball was available. There was also the predictable five overs of Trott and Swann was largely ineffective on what is effectively a first day pitch. But the West Indies should have been bowled out and probably bowled out well before stumps. England seemed to lack a cutting edge, which has really been a bit of a problem all series. There were a total of three drops in the slips and twice an edge went through the vacant third slip. The carelessness in the field was annoying, but the negative field setting was worse. This is a three day Test and one which it is almost impossible for England to lose and yet there were only two slips in for the second new ball. It was absolutely pointless caution. Whilst this would not usually be surprising from Strauss, in this case he had at least given Finn a full slip cordon in the morning with the original ball, so why not with the second?

Restoring that ‘bite’ is something which England must do before the series against South Africa starts. If one looks back on the home series against India; there were a few chances that went down, but only a few and almost none that played a big part. I’m sure England did drop some chances in the Ashes before that, but none are at all memorable and I don’t think there were more than a couple. Even when we were losing in the UAE we held our chances more often than not. Putting down three in a day (and a few more earlier in the series) represents a troubling aberration. Although it would be disappointing, hopefully this is no more than a case of the players not being ‘up’ for an early season series against a weak team. We did see much the same against Sri Lanka last year. Whatever the problem is, it needs to be solved before the Series against South Africa.

The combination of sloppiness and negativity cost England the opportunity to put themselves into a great position. The West Indies batted decently, but still threw a few wickets away (Sammy, particularly, appeared to forget or disregard the batting lesson from the first two Tests) and were overmatched in any case. The fact that England could not take advantage is disappointing from the perspective of the match itself. The best chance to get a result was to only play three innings and the best chance for that to happen was for England to bowl the West Indies out for under 200 and get a big lead by the end of day four. Now it looks like England will not have time to do so and will have to look to skittle the West Indies on the last day and quickly chase it. It is much less likely and whilst it would be a bit harsh on England for anyone to expect them to win, they did have a chance and have made it much harder on themselves.

England win by nine wickets

In the end, this was not close. To be fair, it should never have been. The West Indies had some good sessions, usually accompanied by England seeming to switch off a bit, but in the rest of the match England were utterly dominant. In a way, it was another good warmup for England before South Africa (pity about the huge number of ODIs in between, but that is another rant). The West Indies showed in the evening of the first day and the first half or so of the third that England could not really afford to let up, but England seldom bothered to get out of about second gear. The one time they did, on the third evening, the West Indies found themselves 61-6.

There were some bright spots for the West Indies: Darren Sammy had a very good match with the bat; he finally realised that he could not simply throw the bat at everything and hope it came off. Not only in the first innings, when he scored his maiden Test century, but also in the second as he tried to push the target up to something reasonable he found a much better balance of orthodox attack and sensible defence. It was a far cry from his dismissal at Lord’s to a ball that he did well to even reach. Marlon Samuels did very well in both innings, with a century in the first and an unbeaten 76 in the second. He is another who seems to have worked out the value of patience; in both innings his strike rate was under fifty. Kemar Roach had a massive no-ball problem and apparently still has a slight ankle problem, but he bowled brilliantly with the second new ball.

England will not go into Edgbaston thinking that there are no problems, but the scoreline is a fair one for the Test as a whole. None of the batsmen really fared poorly, most of the dismissals were to good deliveries. The main exception, Strauss, can be excused on the grounds that he had already made 141. The bowling was very good in the second innings and for parts of the first. Jimmy finally started to get a bit of luck, though his match figures are still less than he deserved. He and Broad blew away the West Indies top order twice and though many of the batsmen were complicit in their own demise, there are few who would say that the opening spells were anything but sharp. They might care to look at the balance of the side and ensure that they are still effective with the old ball.

Going into Edgbaston, I suspect the West Indies may name an unchanged side. There is not a lot of reserve talent at their disposal, so even Kirk Edwards will probably stay on. Roach and Rampaul bowled well enough, at least in bursts, that there should be no temptation to bring Fidel Edwards back. That will probably become clearer after the match at Leicester, however. Roach also needs to work on his no-balling problem in that match.

England, despite their comfortable win, may make at least one change. There has been a suggestion that with the series wrapped up they may choose to rest Broad and Anderson. Bresnan would appear to have secured his place for the near future. I do not think that Jimmy will be rested, though Broad might be. Jimmy is a bowler who relies on being in a good rhythm and appears to improve when he has a few overs under his belt. Given that there are also eight or nine ODIs between Edgbaston and Lord’s in which Jimmy is not certain to take part, I would certainly play him at Edgbaston. Broad is a slightly different story. He is a more integral part of the ODI side and can be expected to play in all of them. He also has a lot of past injuries, which Jimmy does not. I think England must give Finn a chance to show himself at Test level and resting Broad would be a good way to do that for a Test.

Whoever plays, I expect another comfortable win for England. There is simply a massive gulf between the two sides and I don’t think the West Indies can overcome it. There have been positive signs from them at least, perhaps in another four or eight years we will have a proper contest again.

Trent Bridge, day two: Eng 259-2

Today was rather better from an English point of view. (It was an incredibly frustrating one from a Lancastrian point of view, but that’s a different post.) The West Indies did better in the morning than I thought they might have, but they still did not look like they had done enough with their 370 all out. To be fair, it was always going to be incredibly difficult to get back into contention after their start, but they really did not help themselves. Sammy and Samuels actually saw off the first burst in the morning and Sammy got (a bit streakily) to a very well played and richly deserved hundred. But then when it looked like England were not going to be able to stop them from getting up to a good total, the West Indies appeared to decide to up the pace a bit. Given that it was only the second morning and they were still not yet in a particularly strong position it is a very questionable decision. Sammy probably just reverted to is usual type after bringing up his ton, but Samuels made little effort to shepherd the tail. Given how patient he had been all series, it was rather surprising to say the least. Tim Bresnan was the main beneficiary and ended up taking four wickets. To say his figures are misleading would be a massive understatement.

The West Indies really shot themselves in the foot when they were bowling, however. Twice Kemar Roach got Cook caught off a no-ball and seemed to lose it mentally shortly thereafter. He was never able to completely settle and the West Indies were effectively without their main strike bowler for most of the day. Ravi Rampaul did do a decent job in his stead: getting the ball to swing and taking the wickets of both Cook and Trott. But he could only bowl so much and Sammy’s heroics with the bat did not transfer over to the ball. He is a useful fourth seamer and a borderline third seamer, but he is not close to being good enough to be effectively the second seamer. This just left the spinner, Shane Shillingford, who was very poor. KP smashed him for six down the ground and from there he just seemed unsure of what to do. He (and actually all the West Indies bowlers to some extent) dragged the ball far too short and wide to Strauss and anyone even passingly familiar with how the England captain likes to bat can tell you not to give him balls to cut. Sammy and Shillingford both went for over four and a half runs per over and were between them responsible for 15 of Strauss’ 18 fours and seven of KP’s 11 boundaries. It meant that the evening session was quite similar to the one last night with the batsmen scoring almost at will and the bowlers looking like they had no answer. The difference is that England already had a decent platform. Strauss and KP’s unbeaten partnership has already brought England to within a Nelson of the West Indies and with eight wickets in hand.

The West Indies will have to work hard to come back tomorrow. To be fair they did so at Lord’s so it is far from impossible, but it is a big ask. Strauss has a history of going cheaply in the morning after being not out overnight so they will fancy their chances to remove him. KP tried very hard to give his wicket away at times this evening and may get himself out early tomorrow as well. There is a danger for the West Indies if he gets himself set, however, as he looked in a mood to really take the attack to the bowling. Even if the West Indies do remove the two not out batsmen early tomorrow, they will still have Ian Bell with whom to deal. Bell looked in excellent form at Lord’s and can dominate an attack just as well as KP, but in a more understated way. Bairstow will have a chance to show that he can score runs at Test level, if in relatively easy circumstances, and I think he has the skill to take that chance. After that come Prior, Bresnan, Broad and Swann. All of whom can add quite a few quick runs against an attack that is tiring and the West Indies attack already look tired. None of this is to say that the West Indies cannot or will not keep England close, but to say they will have to put in a much better effort than they did today. They cannot take wickets with no balls and they cannot bowl to batsmen’s strengths! If they cannot improve they will be looking at a huge first innings deficit.

Eng v WI, Lord’s, day four: Eng 10-2

There will be a fifth day. I did not expect that, in fact I’m not sure anyone expected that. There was apparently more than one journalist who checked out of the hotel this morning. The West Indies fought well, but it has to be said that England bowled poorly. By England’s usual standards it was actually abysmal. Most of the morning was spent trying to contain Chanderpaul and Samuels. Strictly speaking it worked, as the run rate dropped, but it should come as no surprise that Chanderpaul was never tempted into an injudicious shot. As annoying as that was, it did at least seem to be leading up to a proper attack with the second new ball. Except once England got that second new ball, Broad and Anderson kept bowling wide! The length was also a bit too short and they were not making the batsmen play nearly enough. When Broad finally got one full and nipping away it was edged to slip, but the lesson did not seem to sink in. The West Indies fought well (and I do want to make it clear that I think Chanderpaul and Samuels batted very well when not trying to run themselves out), but it was poor bowling by England. For whatever reason, they looked toothless. To be fair, the pitch was flat and the old ball was not really swinging. (And the new one was only a bit.) The lack of swing was probably the biggest problem. Not only was it too cold for the ball to really swing, but England have to use the current (2012) Duke’s balls as they have run out of the 2010 models. For whatever reason (and the people at Duke’s need to find that reason out so they can replicate it) the 2010 balls swung much more than either the 2011 balls or this year’s balls. Last year England did not even use the 2011 balls, preferring the leftover 2010 models. With those gone, England have to work with the less helpful balls. Still, that is no excuse. The ball should not have swung at all in Sri Lanka at all, but they made it work there. At home with some runs with which to work they ought to have done much, much better.

England batted for four overs before stumps. It’s always tricky to do so and I was not terribly surprised to see a wicket go down. It is a situation for the bowlers similar to that of a rugby side playing with a penalty advantage: they can attack unhesitatingly knowing that even if it fails they can just start again the next day. The wicket to fall came off a very good ball and there was very little Strauss could do about it. This did not prevent people from suggesting that it in some way negated his first innings century or that he was not back to form after all. (Both patently ridiculous, of course.) It also meant that there was something akin to panic on Twitter. England were blowing it again, collapsing to an ignominious defeat this time to a weak team at home. The subsequent dismissal of the nightwatchman confirmed this. One wicket was bad, but the loss of James Anderson was vital. One would think that he was key to the run chase and without him England were surely going to lose.

Annoyance with the reaction aside, it really was a good four overs to watch. It’s not nearly often enough one sees the West Indies look like they think they can accomplish something. Roach bowled very well and we got much more lively cricket than when England were bowling negatively and the match was drifting a bit. Anderson’s wicket will not affect the result (except for that if England win the official margin will be different) but it did lead to the very exciting appeal and subsequent review for lbw against Trott. If he had been dismissed it would have put the match more in the balance. As it is, I do not think England have anything about which to worry. The pitch is still very flat, the West Indies do not have a spinner in the side, the forecast tomorrow is quite good and England only need 181 more with five specialist batsmen plus Prior not out. That’s not to say that England can’t lose, of course, but they are still strong favourites.

Eng v WI, Lord’s, day two: Eng 259-3

A great day for England, they’ve put themselves in charge of this Test. This highlight was, of course, Andrew Strauss’ unbeaten century, his fifth at Lord’s. He looked fluent almost all day (until he got into the nineties) and hit some of the best drives down the ground one can hope to see. Upon reaching the milestone, he got what sounded to me like an unusually sustained ovation from a packed Lord’s. Every second of it was absolutely deserved, one could see the determination writ across Strauss’ face during his innings and his delight was palpable when he got to his century. I noted three types of reactions. Most common was the delight. I think almost every England supporter wanted to see Strauss score a century and as noted above the appreciation shown by the Lord’s crowd was immense. The second, and rather amusing, reaction was from the people quickly covering themselves by explaining why all the previous ‘questions’ had still been warranted. As I mentioned the other day, I don’t think they were justified, but I do accept that if they were then this innings would not have changed that. It would simply have meant that he had answered the questions they had set. I still found it amusing to see how quickly people started to defend themselves, however. The reaction that was not amusing (but was at least in a small minority) was that of those who immediately said that a hundred against the West Indies was meaningless. I’ll be the first to admit that runs against a small side should be noted and treated as such, but if a batsman is poor enough to be dropped then he or she is not going to score a century against anyone. It’s especially ridiculous in the case of Strauss because the ‘problem’ has always been that he was getting starts and not going on. This time, however, he set himself and made sure that he did go on. The weakness of the attack was not relevant.

Of course, there was another batsman at the crease during all this. For most of the day it was Trott, after Cook got a little bit careless in the morning session. Trott batted well, clipped the ball through mid-wicket a lot as usual and generally looked pretty untroubled until getting out to a bit of a rash shot. There had been a very unusual incident with his batting after lunch, however. With Fidel Edwards bowling, he fished at one outside off, there was a small noise and a stifled appeal by the Windies. The fieldsmen never acted as though they thought it was out and the umpire did not look like he really considered the half-appeal. Hot Spot and Snicko both subsequently showed, however, that the noise heard was definitely a faint outside edge! Trott was lucky there and he had also been lucky just prior to that as he survived an lbw shout and a review that had the ball just barely not hitting enough of leg to be overturned. Needless to say, there was no comment from those who claim that the DRS is unfairly increasing the odds of an lbw.

For most of the day the West Indies were poor. England’s overnight score of 259-3 is one which may look a little bit low at first, I think especially with England one expects closer to 275-300 runs in a day, but this is not because the Windies kept the scoring rate down. It was around four an over in the morning and even though it dropped from there it still ended up well above three an over. The problem was the West Indies over rate. Even accounting for 2.5 overs lost in the morning to the change of innings, the West Indies only managed 80.2 overs before bad light stopped play after the scheduled close. They hardly have the excuse of wickets falling either. Their overall rate was an appalling 13.3 overs per hour and even assuming one minute for each wicket and two minutes for each drinks break it only goes up to 13.7 overs per hour. It had been clear for some time before bad light stopped play that even an extra half hour was not going to allow all of the overs to bowled. In the overs that they did manage to bowl, the ball did very little off the seam and very little in the air. But one gets the feeling that if England had been bowling the conditions would have appeared a lot more helpful. It was a bit like yesterday in that it was not the shambles it could have been, but nor was it ever close to enough.

England go into tomorrow with their two most under-fire batsmen at the crease: Strauss and Bell. Strauss has already made his hundred and Bell made one in the County Championship as well. I don’t think he is nearly out of form as many people think (remember that he averaged 118 in 2011) and is up against an attack that suits him. I would not be at all surprised to see him get a hundred as well. Jonny Bairstow will finally get a chance to bat tomorrow once one of Strauss or Bell is out and I am looking forward to that. He has been doing well in the LV=CC and as I recall he looked pretty good in the handful of ODIs in which he played. He is also a pretty fast scorer and if he gets in along with Bell, Prior or Broad England have a chance to pile on the runs quickly. They already lead by 16, so the West Indies cannot afford to let that happen.

Eng v WI, Lord’s, day one: WI 243-9

There were two talking points today before play had even started: England’s team selection and Strauss’ decision to bowl first after winning his first toss in four matches. Whilst I understand the decision to play Bresnan, I would not have done so. He is a good bowler and he adds quite a bit to the side, but I don’t think this was the best occasion for him. The conditions actually most suited Graham Onions and I think Steven Finn would have added some very nice variation to the attack. Purely looking at the bowling, both would probably have been better selections, In a way, I think Bresnan’s main qualification is almost his batting. I can certainly see the argument for using batting skill as a tie-breaker of sorts for bowlers, but with Stuart Broad already in the side along with six batsmen and Matt Prior it is rather superfluous. With Bresnan in the side, we comfortably bat down to nine with Swann at ten. That sounds like an argument in favour of Bresnan, of course, and fact that we can bat so deep without seriously compromising our bowling is definitely a good thing. We have seen lower order partnerships either save us or break the back of the opposition many times before. Against the West Indies, however, it’s probably excessive. In my mind, the benefit of playing a stronger bowler is greater than the benefit of extra batting that is probably extraneous anyway. I’d have gone for Finn.

I do, however, agree with Strauss’ decision to bowl first. The pitch is pretty flat, but there was some moisture in it, there was some cloud cover and there was already a strong indication that the West Indies were not going to play a spinner. The Lord’s pitch has been known to actually get better as the match goes on as well, so there was almost nothing to lose by bowling and an opportunity to see if the West Indies would implode.

The Windies did not do so and it is a credit to them. Jimmy Anderson certainly did not make it easy, but the Windies showed some proper application this time and England had to work for a lot of the wickets. The only times we saw the Windies to which we are used was when Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Darren Bravo found themselves at the same end, glaring at each other. It was Shiv’s fault, but Bravo was the man out. Shiv is a great player, but he has had accusations of selfishness levelled at him before and I think we saw a bit of that today. Not only did he make sure he was not the one to pay for his failed calling, he exposed Fidel Edwards in the last over of the day. Edwards did not make it to stumps.

There was also some discussion during the day of Chris Gayle and how much the West Indies theoretically miss him. One would get the impression from listening to people that he would be scoring a century by lunch and keeping the West Indies in the match single-handed. In fact, he only averages 36 in England with one century in 21 innings. In his last six Tests in England he has only passed fifty twice and last time he played at Lord’s he made 28 and nought against an attack that was not as good as the current one. The subject of where he ought to be playing is one for it’s own post, but there is no reason to suspect that the West Indies would be substantially better off in this Test or on this tour with him in the side.

I don’t think the West Indies were particularly poor today. Certainly it was not like what we frequently saw from them against Australia. At the same time, England did not look quite at their best, particularly in the morning session. All the same, England are in the stronger position overnight and deservedly so. They may not have been at their best, but they did play the better cricket over the course of the day. Anderson looked lethal, though that’s nothing unusual, and Broad came back from a poor morning to blow away most of the tail with a combination of fortune and some brilliant deliveries. Today was a case of a very good side playing a fairly poor one. Given how it went, one shudders to think what will happen when England find their stride or the West Indies slip back into their old routine.

Captaincy issues

I have been having a very interesting discussion on Twitter about the merits of various styles of captaincy. This was born, probably fairly predictably, out of a different discussion about Andrew Strauss’ place in the current England side. There were two very interesting questions raised: is captaincy skill reason enough to justify selection and what skills are most important for a captain?

With regard to the first question, I would answer ‘yes’ in almost all cases. The captaincy is almost a specialist position in itself and skill or lack thereof there can have as much an impact on the match as runs or wickets directly taken by the player. The best example of this is probably Mike Brearley. Brearley is rightly famous for his captaincy and boasts not only the fifth highest W/L ratio all time (amongst Englishmen he is behind only Douglas Jardine) but also a record of 11 wins and just one loss in 15 Ashes Tests. He also had a Test batting average just under 23. The goal of a Test match is to win and it is clear that a very good captain can increase the odds of winning even if he or she is a poor batsman. The question of selection is not then ‘pick the best five or six batsmen, a ‘keeper and four or five bowlers’, it is a more general matter of picking the eleven players whose combination of skills provide the best chance of winning a Test match. Depending on the circumstance, one might have a team with very skilled players who can carry a poor captain (eg: Ricky Ponting in the Warne/McGrath era) or one might have a team in which a very good captain causes his team to perform at a higher level than they would otherwise and is thus worth more to the team than a better batsman/bowler. I prefer the latter, but clearly both can work. It is a matter for the selectors to determine which course the situation of the team requires.

How that relates to Strauss then ties into the second question of which skills are most important. As a captain, Strauss has been both lauded for his man-management and criticised for his negativity. The question is whether his captaincy is good enough to offset his form with the bat and I would say that it is. I have certainly not refrained from criticising Strauss when I have felt that it is warranted, but this does not mean I think he is anything other than a very good captain. He has the misfortune of being a captain whose weakest area, tactics, is the one most publicly visible. His work in uniting the dressing room, however, has been utterly astounding. Remember that he took over a very fractured one and managed to transition the ‘old guard’ out with a minimum of fuss whilst at the same time winning an Ashes series that we were not expected to. Since then he has managed to get the very most out of all the players (with the exception of Morgan) and has won the respect of the team. His influence has been visible in some of the ODI series where Cook has been in charge, most notably in India. Cook struggled to control the team when the results were not going their way, this is not something that happens when Strauss is in charge. His calm demeanour and the respect the players have for him has ensured that England have stayed professional even on the occasions where things have not gone their way.

This is not to say that I think tactical ability is completely unnecessary, merely that one can compensate for it. I actually rate Michael Vaughan as one of the best ever England captains because of his tactical genius, but what he and Strauss both exhibit is a massive amount of skill in one area or the other. As with the first question, we have a situation where both man-management and tactics can be successful with the right people in the right circumstances. Finding someone who can do both would be ideal, of course, but a rare luxury. As to which is ‘better’ it is a matter of opinion, but I personally prefer a tactician. As important as it is to have all the players behind the captain, one needs to look no farther than the 2005 Ashes to see the benefits of a tactically astute captain. Cricket is a cerebral game and if a captain can outthink the opposition then the battle is halfway won already. Again, good management can adequately compensate for tactics, but given a straight choice I would choose a tactician.

What does not work, however, is a ‘leader’. I have seen it suggested more than once and more than once have the selectors decided that the best player ought to get the captaincy. I almost think this is from people who watch too much football. In football, all the captain has to do is play well and ‘inspire’ the other ten men. Cricket is not the same, however. A cricket captain has to have something between his or her hears to succeed. To see that this does not work, one needs look no farther than Freddie Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen. (Though one is welcome to look back to Ian Botham too, if one wishes.) Both were unmitigated disasters. Both were captains who played very well, but were tactically inept and could not control the players.

All of the above should give a good indication of why Strauss should have a very secure place in the side. He is not a perfect captain, but there are very few of those and he is a very good one. His captaincy provides more to the side than the runs of another batsman would (and that’s even assuming that Strauss’ contributions with the bat are and will continue to be negligible, neither of which I think are true), if he is dropped the side will be worse off overall.

LV=CC week six roundup

Another heavily rain-affected week in the County Championship last week finished with only one positive result. That result was in a contrived match at Bristol where Yorkshire managed to chase 400 in just over a day. There was very nearly another, however, as Surrey were forced to follow-on at New Road before managing to set the hosts 260 to win and reducing them to 150-8. There was not quite enough time for a memorable victory, however. There was also a contrived match at Leicester with the hosts nine down when time time ran out. The full results:

Sussex drew with Lancashire
Durham drew with Somerset
Nottinghamshire drew with Middlesex
Worcestershire drew with Surrey
Essex drew with Kent
Yorkshire beat Gloucestershire by four wickets
Hampshire drew with Derbyshire
Leicestershire drew with Northamptonshire

Naturally, there has not been a great change in the table this week with only one result. The fact that Notts played and Warwicks didn’t has put the former on top of the division one table, but given that Warwickshire have two matches in hand I don’t think they will be worried. Yorkshire’s contrived victory in the second division has seen them fly up to second in the table. It is an interesting indication too of just how big of a difference even two victories can still make and one which will probably not be lost on Lancashire or Durham.

Whilst there was not a lot of time, there were still some very notable performances. Standing out, of course, are the centuries for Phil Jaques (160) and Gary Ballance (121*) in Yorkshire’s improbable victory at Bristol. That match also featured 111 for Kane Williamson and 5-81 for Tim Bresnan in Gloucs’ first innings. The match at Trent Bridge saw 162 from Michael Lumb countered by 143* from Ollie Rayner as the match never came close to a result. Not nearly as large, but still notable was the unbeaten 43* for the England Captain in the second innings. Surrey’s escape/near victory at New Road naturally included some very impressive batting performances in the second innings, including 115 for Rory Hamilton-Brown and 143 for Tom Maynard. Smaller, but again notable, was KP’s 69 after coming in with Surrey on 11-2 after following-on. Kent’s first innings at Chelmsford saw five ducks and nine single digit scores. And 119 for Darren Stevens. He and Geriant Jones (88) put on 196 for the sixth wicket after coming together at 9-5. The main destroyer for Essex was Charl Willoughby who took 5-70 and four of Kent’s top five batsmen. Derbyshire retained their spot at the summit of Division Two in a tame draw at Southampton. Their first innings of 403-9 featured centuries from Wes Durston (121) and Dan Redfern (133). This was after Hants skipper Jimmy Adams scored 122 in the first innings.