Pietersen to return

In the first of two bits of cricket news to come out today, it was revealed that Kevin Pietersen had completed his reintegration process and had been added to the squad to tour India. I said the other day that this was something the ECB needed to get sorted as soon as possible and fortunately they have done just that. Apparently all the reintegration that was needed was for him to talk to Flower, Cook and a few senior members of the side.

Despite my misgivings over Pietersen’s actions and his poor results in the subcontinent I do think this is a good thing. The matter can now be laid to rest and hopefully Pietersen will have learnt to think a bit before he speaks and acts. The ECB appear to have got all they wanted out of the situation with Pietersen dropping his demands to play in the full IPL and agreeing to play both forms of pyjama cricket and it cannot be argued that they did so in a way which hurt the team as Pietersen only missed one Test. They have clearly acted in the best interests of English cricket in the long term and should be applauded for their success.

Pietersen will presumably then be in the playing XI for the first Test, so I expect it will be back to him at four with Bell at five and I would hope Prior at six. With Bell likely to miss the second Test that would give an opportunity to one of the younger players in the squad as well.

One more month

As of today it is exactly one month until England play the first Test against India in Ahmedabad. Of course, really it is a bit less than one month because I’m writing this late in the day on the 15th and the time difference means that the match will be starting about 16 hours before this on the 15th of next month. (It will actually be the 14th for me.) But never mind that. I am, of course, greatly looking forward to it. Although England have not had a good year in Test cricket so far, India are far from their peak and England are very much in with a shout. But there are a few things to be settled over the next month.

The first is the Pietersen matter. He is now being reintegrated into the team and although it seems likely that he will be added to the touring squad (likely as a 17th member rather than displace one of the current 16) it is not guaranteed. I can see the logic behind this; Flower wants to have Pietersen back in the side, but will rightly not compromise the reintegration process if it is not completed in time for the Test series. But I think it would be better for the team if the matter could finally be put to rest. As I have stated before, Pietersen is of very limited utility in the subcontinent and England lose very little by not having him. I would therefore lean toward leaving him out. But if he is not to be left out then he should be added to the squad as soon as possible. The uncertainty about Pietersen is not yet a problem, but the longer it is left the more it damages the pre-tour plans.

A less important matter is that of Cook’s vice-captain. Stuart Broad seems to be the next in line, being the T20 captain, but he has yet to demonstrate any qualities that suit him even to that role, let alone the vice-captaincy in Tests. In fact, it is almost hard to think of a player less suited to the role than Broad. Much better candidates for the role would be Graeme Swann, Ian Bell and Matt Prior. Swann is possibly the first choice as he did a good job as T20 captain when Broad was injured, though I might just prefer Bell. In general I prefer to have a batsman captain as it rules out ego playing a role in bowling changes and fielding reviews. Matt Prior is another possibility, but his habit of considering every single appeal to be out is problematic. I would go with Bell in the end, but it is something at which Flower will probably have to look. Of course, England might go back to the practice of a few years ago and not have an official vice-captain at all. But a deputy would still have to be nominated if and when Cook goes off the field.

The other matters to be sorted are the more commonplace ones of team selection. Specifically Cook’s new opening partner is yet to be determined and neither is the final balance of the side. These are probably both matter which will be settled during the warmups however. Right now I’d have Root open and play three seamers and two proper spinners, but I might change my mind based on performances in the warmup matches.

Of course, all those matters take a slight backseat to trying to find a way to keep the batsmen from losing their heads whenever a spinner comes on.

The T20 Champions League

It’s come up a couple of times on Twitter, so to clarify: I am not watching the T20 Champions League. This is not because it is T20 per se, though that doesn’t help. Rather there are a few reasons why I am not only utterly uninterested in the tournament, I actively dislike it.

The biggest set of problems is that the concept does not really work in cricket the way it does in football. In football, club competition is the most commonly played and there are hundreds of well established clubs all in relatively close geographic proximity to each other. They all play the same season with the same regulations and under the same central governing body. It works out well and almost follows naturally that they would play some games between each other. But none of this is the case in cricket. The various T20 leagues all play at different times of the year and for much shorter periods than football. (Though the shorter season is, at least, an improvement.) There is also a much greater emphasis on international cricket than there is on international football, with tours taking up most of the calendar instead of scattered international weekends. And unlike in Europe, all of the T20 cricket leagues are geographically distant from each other. The idea of a cricket Champions League is simply not feasible the way it is with football and it is a mistake to try to force one.

Those are all theoretical problems that cannot be overcome and why the notion of a cricket Champions League will never really work the way the football version does. But at least if the problems ended there it could still at least be a mildly interesting curiosity. But the forced implementation has thrown up a whole host of new objections.

The biggest is that the tournament is a de facto extension of the IPL and with the same overall goal: to make money for the BCCI. It has all the same hype and superficiality of the IPL and designed to appeal to the same audience of the IPL. And therefore like the IPL, the whole spectacle is revolting. The tournament is also massively biased in favour of the Indian teams. Presumably that’s to dispel any lingering doubts about who the beneficiary of the whole affair is. The Indian teams go directly into the tournament proper, are given first pick of the players and are allowed more international players than the other teams.

The most annoying aspect of the T20 Champions League is that there is a completely undeserved international window for it. It is a competition comprising only domestic clubs; there is nothing international about it. And even if there were, that should not mean that it gets a window. Should England demand a window for all future Test series? The effect is that I have to wait until the end of the month for international cricket (and until November for Test cricket) because the ICC are in India’s pocket. I am not happy about this.

A suggestion for the ECB

Last night after watching the Orioles beat the Yankees in Game Two of the ALDS, I went to the Cricket Australia website and watched part of a Sheffield Shield match between South Australia and Tasmania. There was no commentary, no graphics and not even any sound. Between overs the camera panned to the scoreboard to keep viewers up-to-date. I don’t really have a horse in the Sheffield Shield, though I am slightly partial to South Australia (who are therefore on the wrong end of a hammering, of course), but I very much enjoyed watching. It’s not that far from summer here and certainly not the true depths of winter yet, but nonetheless it has been a month since the County Championship ended and about the same length of time since anyone played a Test. It was very nice to see proper, red ball cricket and there is always something delightful about domestic first-class matches regardless of the country.

But I do prefer the County Championship to the other first-class competitions and what would really be nice is if the ECB would stream matches in the same way. I know they already have fixed cameras at the grounds for their highlight pieces, so surely they could just have a live stream? I know Sky televise a couple of matches a season, but I would like to see the ECB work out a rights deal such that they could stream matches when Sky were not showing anything. I don’t know the costs, but I don’t expect it is too expensive to have just a single camera operator and although I would prefer it to be free I would actually pay a small amount to watch.

I suspect it is pretty low on the ECB’s radar and rightly so. But I would love to consistently be able to watch the County Championship live and especially Lancashire.

A triumph for the ECB

I’ve been busy over ht past couple of days, but now that I have had time to see the full extent of the most recent news about Kevin Pietersen I note that it looks very good. Pietersen seems to have finally realised that his position was untenable and that if he wanted to play for England (and by extension command a high price at various T20 events) he was going to have to bend. Anyone who had noted that he was going up against an unhappy Andy Flower could have probably told him that a month ago, but never mind.

The deal agreed upon is a very good one for both parties. The ECB have very rightly not conceded any of the important ground and demanded (and received) a real apology from Pietersen, not something via his agent. I kept seeing over the last weeks complaints that the ECB were making him apologise more than once, but that isn’t true. He never issued a public apology; his agent did most recently, but that is not the same. Before that, in his YouTube video, Pietersen had never actually uttered any sort of apology. He avoided it as skilfully as a seasoned politician. The ECB were quite right to make Pietersen himself apologise and apologise properly. Mike Selvey described the whole affair brilliantly in the Guardian. Pietersen can now work on regaining the trust of his teammates and demonstrate that he really is fully committed to play for England, something which has been conspicuous by its absence in Pietersen’s actions over the past few months.

The ECB were actually quite lenient, which should go some way to placating those who have been unfairly criticising them over the past few weeks. They are allowing Pietersen to play in the Champions League during his reintegration process which is a surprising show of reconciliation. They are also allowing him to come back for the tour of India, at least on a trial basis, rather than making him wait for the series against New Zealand. (As I have set out before, he is of little use in the sub-continent. But this is a good show of leniency by the ECB and it is for the best not to drag the matter out longer than need be.) Pietersen can certainly have no cause for complaints with the deal, now he must hold up his end and work his way back into the England fold.

It is good for all concerned that this episode seems to be nearing a conclusion. Although there has been a lot of ire directed at the ECB and Flower, it is Pietersen’s fault and Pietersen’s fault alone that it has taken this long. He has finally seen some sense and finally realised that he must abandon his arrogance and ego which have been the source of all these problems. Hopefully now he can complete his penance and return to a stronger and more unified England team. Unfortunately, given Pietersen’s history I would not be surprised if he did or said something stupid to throw everything back into the air.

T20 World Cup Group 2 permutations

With the second round of matches in Group 2 of the T20 World Cup finished we can now look at the possible permutations in that group as well. As far as points go it is actually set up the same way as group one is, but the NRRs are different and actually produce a slightly simpler result.

First what’s already been confirmed: nothing. In theory anyway. In practice Australia are all but through to the semi-finals and are almost certain to top the group as well. Using the same formulae from yesterday, we get that Pakistan would need to win by around forty runs or with 5.2 overs to spare to catch Australia on NRR. That’s just to put Australia into the runners-up spot, however. For Australia to actually be knocked out, India would have to beat South Africa by just as much. It’s pretty safe to assume that Australia will top the group and very safe to assume they will at least advance.

That’s where the safety ends though, all three other teams have decent shots at getting the runners-up position. Pakistan’s match against Australia is first and as discussed above they have very little hope of catching Australia’s NRR. But they are not safe from the two sides below them; they are so close to India they are essentially in a dead heat and only a small amount above South Africa on NRR. This puts Pakistan in almost a must-win scenario. The only way they can advance with a loss is if South Africa then win and not by enough to go ahead of Pakistan on NRR. In practice that means that Pakistan would have to lose by only two or three runs or with only one ball to spare and South Africa could not win by more than four runs or with more than two balls to spare.

So Pakistan essentially have to win, but a victory is actually not enough to get them to safety. They are so close to India that if both sides win it will come down to which of them can do so by more. Although Pakistan are slightly ahead right now, they won’t necessarily come off better if both sides win by the same margin either. A low scoring win by, say, 15 runs counts for more than a higher scoring affair decided by the same margin (which makes sense as 15 runs represents a higher per cent of the total RR in a lower scoring affair) so the specific scores for both sides would come into play if they both won. The upshot is that Pakistan need to win by as much as they possibly can and then hope South Africa do them a favour and either win or lose by a smaller amount than Pakistan win.

South Africa may not be feeling too charitable in that situation, however, as a Pakistan will eliminate the Proteas. South Africa need Australia to win first and foremost, but if they get that they will have more than just a sniff of hope. An Australian win would actually make the South Africa v India match almost a winner-take-all affair. Certainly if India were to win after Australia won then both teams would go to the semi-finals. And if South Africa won after Australia won then probably both teams would go to the semi-finals. The caveat in the second case is that it would actually go down to NRR again between all three of South Africa, India and Pakistan. They are all three close enough together that South Africa’s victory would likely sent them above the other two. To go above India they would need to win by at least four runs or with two or more balls to spare. That would also automatically send them above Pakistan unless Pakistan lost off the final or penultimate ball or by only two or fewer runs. Neither of those are likely, but both are possible, so South Africa must make sure they read their NRR sheets better than they do their D/L sheets!

In summary:
-Australia are all but through.
-Pakistan need to win and then hope that either South Africa also win or that if India win it is by a smaller margin than Pakistan’s win.
-South Africa are out if Pakistan win, but otherwise can advance by beating India by more than four runs/two balls.
-India can advance with a win if Australia also win or by beating South Africa by more than Pakistan beat Australia. A very close defeat to South Africa will also probably be enough.

T20 World Cup Group 1 permutations

After the first two sets of matches in Group 1 of the Super Eights all four teams still have a chance to advance and all four teams still could fail to advance, though in Sri Lanka’s case that would be unlikely. The last round of matches sees the West Indies face New Zealand and England face hosts Sri Lanka. For Sri Lanka, almost any result is enough. A win will guarantee that they will top the group and even if they lose they can still advance if the West Indies fail to hammer New Zealand. If England win they will probably be in the semi-finals and might even top the group if they win by enough. A defeat will not necessarily eliminate England, however. It will depend on the result of the other match. The West Indies can can not ensure a place in the semi-finals even if they beat New Zealand, but they can put some pressure on the other teams to get a result. But they are out if they lose, as are New Zealand. The Kiwis are in the most dire position, needing both to win and get some help from elsewhere.

It gets interesting in the specifics though. Whilst a Sri Lanka victory and a West Indies victory is simple enough (they both advance), if England and the West Indies both win then they and Sri Lanka will all be on four points at the top of the table and the group winner and runner-up will be decided on Net Run Rate. Sri Lanka have a comfortable lead right now, but a loss to England will obviously eat into that. England can realistically top the group if they win by a decent amount and in theory the West Indies can as well, though it will take an incredible win.

For England to top the group they have to beat Sri Lanka and hope that the West Indies don’t win by enough to top their NRR (which would be unlikely). The first situation is the most straightforward, Sri Lanka’s NRR right now is: $\frac{304}{35.2} - \frac{303}{40} = 1.029$ and England’s is $\frac{313}{38.5} - \frac{327}{40} = -0.115$ . (NB: The decimal values for overs are not ‘true’ decimals, but the usual cricket notation for fragments of an over. That is: ‘38.5’ = ’38 + 5/6′.) Unfortunately, the way NRR is set up means that it can’t be said that England need to win by x runs or with y balls to spare; the required margin of victory will actually vary with the first innings score. If England bat first and score x and Sri Lanka then score y the equation (and I’ve set it up as an equation instead of an inequality because England technically only need to draw level; the next tiebreak is head-to-head result) for England to overtake Sri Lanka is $\frac{313+x}{58.5} - \frac{327+y}{60} = \frac{304+y}{55.2} - \frac{303+x}{60}$ (bearing in mind that the sides are considered to have used their full overs even when bowled out and that England are assumed to win since otherwise the analysis is irrelevant). This solves out to a linear equation that gives Sri Lanka’s maximum score, y, for a variety of English scores, x: $y=0.969x - 16.5$ . This works out to a 20-25 run margin for likely scores.

It gets a little bit more complicated if Sri Lanka bat first though. Then it becomes a question of England needing to knock the runs off in a certain number of overs. If Sri Lanka score x then the overs, y England have in which to get the total is given as: $\frac{313+x+1}{38.5+y} - \frac{327+x}{60} = \frac{304+x}{55.2} - \frac{303+x+1}{40+y}$ which works out to: $y=\frac{28.8(\sqrt{x^2+618x+95500}-0.369(x+331))}{x+315}$ . (As much as I’d like to say I worked that out by hand, it would not be true.) This is a more complicated graph, but it actually has a happier result. It is quite flat for reasonable run totals and the quantised nature of the run chase gives us a handy result: for any Sri Lankan score between 101 and 205 (inclusive), England will have 17.2 overs in which to chase it if they wish to better Sri Lanka’s NRR. There is the caveat though that if it is close then England could hit a boundary for the winning runs and possibly get over the line with an extra ball used. For totals of 100 or fewer England will have 17.1 overs and for totals of 206 or greater England will have 17.3 overs, but in the first instance it isn’t likely that Sri Lanka will score so few and in the second instance it isn’t likely that England will chase that many even in twenty overs.

That’s for England and Sri Lanka and England are safe if they can get above Sri Lanka. But the the West Indies are still in the mix with a win. The easiest scenario for them is that they win and England lose. That will guarantee them the runners-up position. They can also finish second if England win narrowly, though and if England manage to drag Sri Lanka’s NRR down far enough the West Indies could even top the group. The problem for the West Indies is that right now their NRR is very low. It’s well behind Sri Lanka and pretty far even behind England. Even if England win by only a very small amount and only increase their NRR by a small amount, the West Indies will need to win pretty comfortably to catch them. The other possibility for them is that England hammer Sri Lanka and bring Sri Lanka’s NRR within range, but that will likely require another comfortable victory for the West Indies. They also have the slight problem of playing first, so they will not know what they need. Getting their NRR back to parity would be a good way to make England (and Sri Lanka to a lesser extent) sweat a bit though. To do that they would need to win by about twenty runs $\frac{308+x}{60} - \frac{294+y}{55.2}=0 \Rightarrow y=0.928x-8.24$ or with about two and a half overs to go $\frac{308+x+1}{40+y}-\frac{294+x}{55.2}=0 \Rightarrow y=\frac{15.7(x+347)}{x+294}$ . It certainly can be done, though it won’t guarantee anything. They’d need a much more convincing win to have a chance to top the group though. Either England or Sri Lanka will have a NRR well into the positive range and for the West Indies to get their NRR that high would be a massive effort.

What they will be hoping above all is that England lose. And If the West Indies win and England lose then the West Indies will finish as runners-up. If the West Indies lose, however, they are out even if England also lose. They would actually be level on points with England and New Zealand, but their NRR is already worse than New Zealand and would of course go down even farther. This is actually New Zealand’s only chance of going to the semi-finals. Right now their NRR is only a little bit worse than England’s and there is every chance that a win could send them above England or even close enough that a subsequent English loss would send their NRR under that of the Kiwis. Like with the case of the West Indies it is hard to calculate what they need as they don’t have a clear target, but the closest thing is probably England’s current NRR (although England can actually raise it with a loss if the loss is in a super over). Still, for New Zealand to go past England on NRR would put a lot of pressure on England and the equations to do that are (defending): $\frac{322+x}{60} - \frac{323+y}{58.5}=-0.114 \Rightarrow y=0.981x-6.59$ and chasing: $\frac{322+x+1}{40+y} - \frac{323+x}{58.5}=-0.114 \Rightarrow y=\frac{18.83(x+324.4)}{x+322.3}$ . They could do this relatively easily by winning by about ten or eleven runs or by chasing a target in 18.5 overs. Their chances should certainly not be written off.

Summary
Sri Lanka can get through and top the group with even a reasonably close loss. If they get within 20-25 runs of England in a chase or make England take more than 17.2 overs to chase down a target they will very likely win the group. They could theoretically be knocked out if England pass them and the West Indies beat New Zealand by enough to pass them both, but the odds are against it.

England can top the group by beating Sri Lanka by more than 25 runs or chasing down Sri Lanka’s target in 17.2 overs or quicker. A win of any type will probably be enough to advance though the Windies could knock them out with a comfortable win over New Zealand. They can advance with a loss if New Zealand win, but very narrowly.

The West Indies can advance if they win and England lose. They can also advance if they beat New Zealand by about 25 runs/three overs and England win fairly narrowly. If they thrash the Kiwis they will have a chance to even top the group, but it is very unlikely.

New Zealand can advance if they beat the West Indies comfortably and England then lose. But anything else will send the Kiwis out.

Well done the counties!

George Dobell reports in Cricinfo today that the counties are expected to reaffirm their commitment to Championship cricket and shun the farce of the T20 Champions League. This can only be a good thing. The Champions League is essentially an arm of the IPL and shares the same goals: to make money for the BCCI. The tournament has always been heavily weighted toward the Indian teams and very much against the English ones. The English teams would have better odds of winning the prize money at a casino. There was no reason for English teams to ever take part; for all the talk of it being allegedly an international tournament and the players benefiting from the supposedly higher level of play, the fact is still that it is a dressed up club competition. There is no reason to suggest that the actual standard is at all higher than it is in England just because there is more light and sound associated with it. It is the same fallacy that leads people to the mistaken impression that the IPL has some legitimacy.

There is also the longstanding problem that the Champions League conflicts with the end of the County Championship. This could be avoided if those in charge of the tournament bothered, but they don’t and that should be no surprise. The BCCI have made it very clear in the past that they care nothing for the County Championship and whilst I can understand that as it isn’t their competition, they have also shown their usual unwillingness to compromise on any matter. It is a stance we have seen all across the politics of cricket for years now. These past two years the ECB have scheduled the County Championship ridiculously early to allow the counties to play in the Champions League and it has really come back to hurt them. Quite rightly it is time that the ECB stopped catering to those who will not return the favour. If the BCCI ever decide that they want English teams in the tournament they can push it back by a week or two. Until then they can play their own weighted game without the counties.

Some other good things appear to be coming are an extended period of domestic T20 and a return to fifty over List A cricket. Although there are things I like about the T20 window, I’ve never been too fond of it as it really disrupts the momentum of the Championship and then there is far too long before the quarter-finals and Finals Day. A full season of T20 on weekends is a much better idea. With regard to fifty over cricket, I do understand the concerns of the counties and actually prefer listening to forty over matches. But I would rather have a fifty over competition to match that of international cricket.

I’m quite pleased about this news overall. After all the gloom of the Morgan Report last winter it seems that everyone has seen sense about the importance of a 16 match Championship and actually look to be making improvements to the structure rather than semi-random deletions. Common sense has been a rare beast in the governance of cricket recently; finally we are seeing a good example of it.

T20WC format

The format for this years T20 World Cup has been widely derided as a farce. And rightly so; it never really made sense and especially with the rain intervening it has seen the West Indies go through to the second round without even having completed a match. (England benefited from a similar situation two years ago when they went into the second round on the back of a rain-hit loss and a no-result.) We’ve also seen Zimbabwe eliminated from the tournament before England had even played a match and a dead rubber for England in only their second match of the tournament. The only way things could have been worse for the ICC is if a minnow had, god forbid, made it into the second round.

The current format most resembles that of the 2007 fifty over World Cup which was famously terrible. I would look at the 2011 fifty over World Cup which dragged on forever, but at least was considered a success. In that tournament there were 14 teams instead of twelve, but they each went directly into two groups of seven instead of playing a pointless first ’round’ of only two matches. There is no reason why the T20 World Cup could not do the same. It’s actually the exact same number of matches for each of the seeded teams as in the current format (five), plus another three for each of the minnows. Whilst it admittedly isn’t fun to see the minnows play each other, it would only happen twice and the nice thing about T20 is that there is time for two matches in a day so there can be one ‘good’ match along with the one involving minnows. This gives the lesser nations a fair time in the tournament and a decent shot at an upset if they do well enough to earn it.

Unlike in the fifty over World Cup, however, I would not have the groups lead into quarter-finals, but instead go directly into semi-final matches. This means that instead of having the top eight teams get a pretty easy pass into the knockouts there will be real pressure in the group stages. It will add another layer of intensity to the ‘big’ matches and it will also mean that the matches of established v smaller nations will still have something relevant riding on them.

The other benefit of this format is that it doesn’t drag on. By my count there would be thirty matches in the group stages and with two being played a day that would last just over two weeks, Another two days for the semi-finals and final gives a total time for the tournament of either 17 days or 19 to give some rest days between knockouts. Either way it would be long enough for a good result but not nearly so long as to get people wondering when it will all end. It also leaves some leeway to expand the tournament. Adding another two teams would only make it 23-25 days long.

That format is not perfect, of course, (I doubt there is any way with the current situation of world cricket to make a format flawless) but it would be a huge improvement on the current one. It would be fair to the teams, watchable and of a decent timespan. The only other way to improve on it would be to hold it every four years like a real World Cup!

England in the T20WC

England had a dead rubber T20 World Cup match yesterday against India. It’s just as well for England that there was nothing riding on it as it didn’t go as well as one would have liked. England conceded too many with the ball and then looked less than helpless with the bat en route to a comprehensive defeat. The main problem when England were batting was their old nemesis: spin. It wasn’t even good spin, but England still looked helpless in reading it and collapsed quite farcically. There have been several predictable statements about the implications of the collapse and whilst it is bad I think there are only a few things one can take from this match.

The first is nothing to do with the batting and instead relates to England’s failed tactic with the ball. They decided the best way to go after India was with four seamers and a lot of short stuff. It didn’t work. Bresnan was hit around the park, Dernbach had a disastrous last over (and wasn’t great in the other three) and Broad was never terribly effective. The only bowler to do well was Swann, the lone spinner, who took 1-17 off his four overs. It was a dead rubber, so some experimentation was understandable. But England must take note that it didn’t work. Whilst that wasn’t the reason they lost, chasing a large total never helps the batsmen either.

Stuart Broad is still not convincing as a T20 captain. (Or any captain, actually, but this is the only format in which we’ve seen him.) Admittedly it’s harder to judge captaincy in so short a format, but he does not really seem to be on top of matters. From what we saw last year, Graeme Swann looks much better suited and although the ECB did interview several candidates before deciding on Broad I think they might want to reconsider at some point.

Whilst there is no doubting that England do have a big problem against spin, it is important to remember that such things do happen in T20s. At the end of last summer, England collapsed in a very similar manner against the West Indies at the Oval and lost a match they probably ought to have won. No one said anything about there being a fatal weakness that would haunt them in Tests then and rightly so. There are similarities, but the style of play is overall so different that I think it is very hard to draw long-term conclusions from one T20 innings. Again, England do have a problem against spin. But we knew this from watching them in the UAE and Tests against Sri Lanka, not watching a single T20 innings.

Looking at the next round of the tournament, for which England qualified after their first match, they will still have a lot of confidence in getting to the knockouts. Their group contains the West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand and they only need to finish in the top two to the semi-finals. They will want an improved performance before then, but they certainly can do so. They’ve actually done rather better in this group stage than they did two years ago when they won. Of course, this all assumes the rain stays away. Given the forecast, that might be optimistic and we might see some ridiculous rain shortened results.