Sri Lanka v England preview

Two Tests. England have flown 8700 kilometres (roughly) for just two Tests. Admittedly, I’m kind of glad there aren’t any ODIs or T20s on the tour, but two Tests is really not ever enough. Especially given that the Sri Lanka Cricket Board are still in some financial difficulty, one would think that they would be very keen to have as many Tests as possible against England. I concede that it isn’t very feasible, however. It’s hard to fit two tours in after Christmas; there isn’t time for a third Test as it would be clashing badly with the County Championship (the second Test already overlaps slightly with the first round of matches) and England could not really have come much earlier, the Pakistan tour had barely ended anyway. So two Tests it is.

Despite the poor showing in Pakistan, and a poor recent record in Sri Lanka, I think England are still favourites. Sri Lanka don’t have the same quality of bowling that Pakistan have (they still badly miss Murali and Malinga) and our batsmen appear to be in much better form than they were in January. I think the best battles will be when Sri Lanka are batting. We still have one of, if not the, best bowling attacks in the world and one which has shown the ability to take wickets even in unhelpful conditions. At the same time, however, Sri Lanka have the world’s best batsman in Kumar Sangakkara and two very good ones in Thilan Samaraweera and Mahela Jayawardene, though the latter is starting to show his age. England’s bowlers had a brilliant match in the first warmup, but struggled in the second so it’s hard to say how they’ll go in the Tests. Neither match was played at one of this series’ Test grounds so we can’t assume much about the wickets that we didn’t already know. I’m slightly more inclined to think that the bowlers will go well though. England were without Jimmy Anderson in the match where they struggled and as good as Broad is, it is important to have an attack leader. Furthermore, England played two spinners in the first match, as they are likely to do in the Tests, but only one in the second. There will be tough battles against the Test quality opposition, but we know that Sri Lanka are prone to collapse (see the 2011 Cardiff Test) and I think England have the skill to trigger a couple.

Sri Lanka will have seen England in Pakistan though and must be thinking that England are just as if not more vulnerable to collapse as they are. I’m not sure that’s accurate, however. Sri Lanka simply do not have the same bowling strength as Pakistan. Rangana Herath is probably their biggest threat, given England’s problems against spin, and he’s not a bad bowler. He still averages 35 in Test cricket though. The rest of their attack are even worse. Angelo Mathews is out with an injury and will probably never bowl again regardless. The second spinner in the squad, Suraj Randiv, averages over 42 and the two pacemen, Suranga Lakmal and Chanaka Welegedara average 55 and just under 40 respectively. Averages aren’t everything, of course, and England will have to play a lot better against spin than they did in Pakistan, but it does go to show that the Sri Lankan attack is not one that would be feared under normal circumstances. Fortunately for England, the batsmen have got off to a much better start this tour than last time. Cook has scored 163* in his only innings and Strauss and Trott both have unbeaten centuries (both retired). KP, Patel and Prior all have fifties. The only worry is Bell, who has still not found his form. There is still the question of who will bat at six, but Patel seems to be firmly in the lead (thank god) as Bopara will not be able to bowl if picked. (Not that he should do anyway. Jonathan Trott actually has better career figures.)

The matches are not played on paper, as we found out with a bump in the UAE, but England will wish that they were. Even taking into account the struggles into the UAE, England are clearly the much better side. They have far, far better bowlers and at least comparable batsmen. They will have to find a way cope with the very harsh conditions though. Apparently it got up to 46 degrees during the recent warmup match and even if the pitches are not outright hostile for our bowlers, they will not be helpful. I don’t think Sri Lanka have the bowling to force a victory, but they do have the batting to possibly force a draw. I think England will win the series 1-0, though if we play well a 2-0 margin is definitely possible.

There’s still football?

Liverpool played QPR yesterday. Perhaps you heard about the match, we had a 2-0 lead in the 76th minute and blew it, losing 2-3. It was pretty galling, and at the time I was very cross. And I stayed very cross for about ten minutes. In that time I stepped outside. It’s been raining, but it was still quite warm and the flowers are blooming. I then went over to the Lancashire website and read about Luke Procter’s century in the pre-season match in the UAE. And then the football result didn’t really matter. This sort of thing happens every year. It’s usually a few weeks later, but I cannot remember a year in which I’ve really still cared about football after mid-April at the latest.

There are many reasons for this. One of them is because Liverpool don’t have a lot for which to play right now, at least not in the league. (I expect I’ll still care about the FA Cup matches.) It’s no coincidence that I never care after the baseball season and County Championship start though. For me football is a winter sport. Football is great when it’s dark and cold, it is something about which I can care and follow in the middle of winter. But it isn’t the same as cricket. Football is a very divisive, vitriolic sport and although it is so much fun to watch it can be very painful to follow between matches. It interests me, and I can’t really disengage from it, but I don’t enjoy it. But now there is something else. The weather has got warm unusually early and happily the County Championship is starting unusually early too. It is time, or nearly so, to leave the dark and cold of football in favour of the warmth and light of cricket. England’s match against Sri Lanka starts on Monday (late Sunday night here) and Lancashire start the County Championship curtain raiser the day after that. Football has been a lovely diversion since October, but it is no longer needed.

Of course, the season isn’t actually over. No, that will drag on for another two months almost. I’ll still watch. I’ll still enjoy the matches as they take place and I’ll still cheer on Liverpool with all my heart. But any joy or pain from the match will likely end with the broadcast. It just doesn’t matter anymore. The season should be ending. Football is so lucrative that it’s probably lucky that there’s an offseason at all (and even so there only barely is one) but the season is really at least two months too long. It should start a month later than it does and it should end no later than the second week of April. For those who love that sport above all others, some more time off should make the season all the sweeter. For the rest of us, a few months in which to enjoy summer and cricket without the interruption of winter’s sport should not be too much to ask.

Walk when out

This is a few days old, but I missed it at the time: Graeme Swann said that Sri Lankan batsman Dilruwan Perera was a ‘cheat’ for not walking after edging a delivery from Jimmy Anderson to slip and not walking. With the umpires unsighted and no cameras at the warmup match Perera was allowed to continue his innings, to the fury of the England players. I would not call it cheating, as he has not contravened any laws, but it certainly is unsporting and especially in a warmup match I think it is despicable behaviour. I understand that a batsman has a duty to try and see his team win the match, but in a warmup match the result is largely irrelevant, so why try to gain an unfair advantage?

It does raise (again) the question of walking in a Test match though. It is a little bit more complicated; the result does matter, so should a batsman do whatever he has to do to stay at the crease? In a word: no. Any sport, not just cricket, is reliant on fair play by all the participants. One does not make an umpire adjudicate if one’s of stump goes cart-wheeling and an edge to slip, even taken near the ground, is usually just as clear cut. The ball has been hit and caught cleanly, so get back to the pavilion. To do otherwise may not be cheating, but it is gaining an unfair advantage by exploiting the limitations of the umpires and of technology. It is dishonest and regardless of how much it helps the team it should not be allowed. The point of any sport is fair competition and resorting to dishonest methods, whether merely unsporting or outright cheating, devalues any subsequent victory.

It is impossible to police, of course, but I do wish that team management, fans and media would come down much more harshly on players who try to con umpires. (Though cricket is much better than most sports.) Players who ‘compete’ like that damage their own and the team’s image and it should not be tolerated. I know it will probably never happen, and that it is probably overly idealistic to even suggest it, but that does not make it wrong.

Amir’s interview

Unfortunately I was not able to watch the full interview that Mohammed Amir gave to Michael Atherton, but I found a transcript and it makes for very interesting reading. Amir is very contrite, saying ‘I told myself that I’d definitely done wrong and would accept the truth, whatever the consequences’ and ‘What I can say is that I think I deserved to be punished’. At the same time, however, he says that he was ‘tricked’ into the fixing by Salman Butt, at whose feet he lays the blame.

Amir says that he panicked and made an error of judgement. That is a plausible and far-reaching defence, but also one for which it is hard to provide evidence. It is worth mentioning that as intelligent and well-spoken as Atherton is, he is not a QC and thus not trained in cross examination. There is a particular portion of Amir’s testimony which struck me as suspicious: he gave his bank details to an unknown third party ‘Ali’ before the Oval Test, apropos of nothing according to Amir. Supposedly he did so because the man was a friend of Butt’s. This is not something I could even imagine anyone doing. I know that Amir’s circumstances are very different from those with which I am familiar, but even so I cannot think of a compelling reason to give one’s bank details to a complete stranger. At the same time, he was given the money for his no-balls in cash, which would be very odd if he had already given his bank details to the fixers. Amir also never answered why he texted ‘so in the first 3 bowl whatever you like and in the last 2 do 8 runs’ before he had been supposedly pressured into bowling the no-balls at Lord’s. It these points on which I think a skilled QC would have pressed and perhaps got a clearer picture than Atherton did.

I am by no means convinced of the veracity of Amir’s story, though the rest of his story is very believable. He claims that Butt and Mazheer told him that the ICC knew of his original phone calls and the only way to stay out of trouble was to follow along with Butt’s fixing. Whilst this is, on the face of it, a rather outlandish claim, the notion that he panicked and accepted is not. If it is true he would be far from the first one to do so. From there he is mostly very contrite, whilst also speaking of his anger with Butt, who Amir considered his ‘older brother’. In general it is a very good interview and it is nice to see him (mostly) take responsibility.

It will inevitably bring up the subject of whether Amir’s ban was too heavy. If one accepts his story as true, then it is easy to paint a picture with it of a young man who had few other options. That would, I think, be ill-advised. Even if one overlooks the illogic of Amir giving away his phone details, the fact that he was pressured into it would only be a reason for some leniency, certainly not any sort of pardon. It must be remembered that the ban is not merely a punishment for Amir, but a shot across the bows of other would-be fixers. The ICC, or any governing body, can never rigourously police and investigate every delivery of every match, they are reliant on informants. As preferable as it would be to use the ‘carrot’ and offer rewards to them, it carries the risk of false claims and is anyway unlikely to match the rewards of fixing. The only direct incentive to report fixing then is the threat of a lengthy ban for all those involved. For Amir, I think five years is about right. He will almost certainly play again, he will still be younger than some debutants when he his ban expires, but his career will have been curtailed and his reputation will probably never fully recover.

The fact that Butt and Asif also only got, in effect, five years is inexcusable, however. Again, I do not fully accept the claim that Butt tricked Amir into fixing, but he was still clearly heavily involved. He had to be, he was the captain and made for a natural organiser. There is no doubt in my mind that he should have been given a life ban and the fact that he wasn’t displayed the spinelessness of the ICC.

Hamilton preview

The second New Zealand v South Africa Test starts in a few hours. I’ll actually miss the first part of it, I’m going out of town for a couple of days, but I’ll be sorry to do so. South Africa were frustrated by the rain at Dunedin, but they did themselves no favours and ought to be kicking themselves about that. Ideally for South Africa that would translate into coming out all guns blazing in the next Test, but I’m not sure it will. They looked very flat before the close on day four and with the added disappointment of the rain their heads may go down. This is, bear in mind, almost the exact same team who responded to a disappointing draw against England by losing by an innings, then responded to another one by winning by an innings. It’s pretty hard to say how they’ll respond here, but I’m leaning towards a positive reaction.

New Zealand should be positive too. Taylor and McCullum batted reasonably well in a high pressure situation on the fourth day, although very little of that pressure was being actively applied by the South African bowlers. Still, they got to stumps in a good enough position that some were suggesting that the rain may have robbed them of a chance of victory. I don’t think that’s true, Taylor and McCullum would have had to get at least another 100 or so of the remaining runs, but they did at least go out of the match on a positive note and can have cause for optimism. Tim Southee has also been dropped which looks like an excellent decision. He has not really performed since very early in his career and would be a fairly unremarkable county bowler in England. New Zealand had trouble turning pressure into wickets in the second innings of the first Test and a large partnership ensued. If they can avoid that in the second Test, they do look like they have the ability to bowl South Africa out cheaply.

I’ve also seen a lot of rubbish about who has the ‘momentum’. It doesn’t matter. Look at the last two Ashes series: in 2009 Australia had the momentum after Headingley and proceeded to lose badly at the Oval. In 2010/11 it was even worse, England had the momentum after Adelaide, but then lost at Perth giving Australia the momentum. Australia were then promptly bowled out for 98 at the MCG and went on to lose by an innings. Sometimes teams will string wins together (usually when they are simply better than the opposition) and sometimes series will go back and forth. Forget ‘momentum’.

Ultimately, I think Steyn, Philander and Morkel will be keen to atone for their performance in the final session at Dunedin and will go after the batsmen much like they did in their first spell of that innings. New Zealand batted reasonably well in Dunedin, but I expect South Africa to step up a bit more and make life very difficult for them. The Kiwis are an improving side and should do enough to keep the match interesting, but I think South Africa will take a 1-0 lead.

DRS in Sri Lanka

According to Cricinfo, the DRS in use for the Sri Lanka v England series will not have HotSpot (which the SLCB cannot afford), but will have Hawk-Eye instead of the much more random looking Virtual Eye. The article also says that Snickometer will be ‘the only tool to aid decisions on catches’ which is odd as it was previously decided that Snicko took too long to be used for the DRS. I don’t know if that has changed or if the article was simply inaccurate, but going off of some other information I’d guess the latter.

Even without HotSpot it is good to have the DRS and even better to have Hawk-Eye over Virtual Eye. I have already made my views on technology clear and I am glad that some form will be in use. The series will be the better for it and maybe now England’s batsmen will learn to actually use their bats on a slow pitch.

Still number one!

There was no play possible due to rain on the fifth day at Dunedin, meaning that regardless of what happens in the last two Tests of the series England will still be number one in the world. A pretty strong argument could be made that we don’t deserve to be, but then a pretty strong argument could be made that South Africa don’t deserve to be either, so it’s probably fair to have it decided by a head to head series this summer. Or maybe I’m just biased (actually I definitely am that, but it doesn’t necessarily make me wrong) and looking for a justification for our clinging on to the top ranking. Either way England can still slip off the top spot before the upcoming series by failing to beat Sri Lanka in the upcoming series there, but that series won’t end until after the official 1 April cutoff date for the ICC prize money. The big series will still be the criminally short three Test affair this summer. I think few would argue with the winner of that being top of the table.

Dunedin, day four

South Africa went into the day in complete control, but will come out of it worried about the weather. Their problems are mostly their own making, though New Zealand have batted decently. They started the day over 200 runs in front and with an extended session the goal ought to have been to increase the run rate with a view to a declaration around lunch. They certainly should have had time to get the lead over 350, which would be very difficult for New Zealand to chase. Instead they batted slowly. Ninety-one runs in two and a half hours would be slow on the first day of a Test, as declaration batting it was maddening. They looked briefly like picking up the pace after lunch, but that didn’t last and soon it was a matter of waiting for Rudolph to finish his century. He did not appear to be in any hurry. When he did bring up three figures before drinks it was still not enough for Smith. When the lead became 399, ie New Zealand would need 400 to win, it was not enough. Instead they batted another six deliveries until a leg bye made the lead 401. I have no idea why Smith would consider one run more important than another over, but more generally I have no idea why South Africa would have batted so slowly before lunch either.

It was poor cricket and poor captaincy, but four and a half session ought to still be enough to bowl out New Zealand, especially the way their quicks started with the new ball. They were on fire before tea and when Philander got the relatively in-form Guptil to edge to slip it looked like just rewards. They eased off after tea though. Tahir came on and looked innocuous. He still got a wicket, but off a knee high full toss that Nicol somehow managed to hit only to mid-on. Another batsman would have hit it into the next county (or the New Zealand equivalent). Instead New Zealand were 55-2 and South Africa had a chance to effectively end the match. They didn’t look really keen though. Tahir stayed on and Steyn was not as incisive as he had been. The bowling was very wide, though that might have been a tactic as McCullum especially had been chasing those. As the innings went on though he settled down and the wide of off stump line became very negative. With rain forecast for tomorrow, one would think that South Africa would be keen on going after the batsmen, but instead they relied on mistakes after tea and have let a large partnership develop.

South Africa will have to bowl much better tomorrow and hope the rain does not play a large part. The way they have gone about trying to force a victory, however, goes a long way to explaining why they are perennially ranked second best.

Cricket is worse today

Two excellent cricketers retired today: Rahul Dravid and Isa Guha. Dravid is the better known and with respect to Guha I think rightly so. It’s always sad to see such a great of the game go, but especially one who so consistently played the right way. It’s a vague and subjective description I know, but no others seem to encapsulate Dravid in quite the same way. I’d like to say he was graceful, but many of his best innings were much more nuggety than graceful (as Alan Tyers describes brilliantly here) and anyway grace is not why I liked him as a cricketer. He played selflessly, even in his retirement announcement he said that he did not want a farewell Test when he did not think he could contribute to a victory. He was one of the few batsmen, certainly in India but in the world in general, who could still play a classical Test innings. In the end, to say that he played the game the right way is not only the best, but almost the only appropriate way to describe him. And whilst it is sad to see him go, it is also very nice to see him go out displaying the same dignity and selflessness he did playing. Some of his teammates should take note.

Whilst Dravid deserves the lion’s share of the media, we should not forget the contribution that Guha made to the England team. She was an integral part of the team that won the Triple Crown of the Ashes, the fifty over World Cup and the twenty over World Cup. England are arguably a better team now than they were then, but it seemed to me that that team was one that significantly raised the profile of women’s cricket. (Trophies tend to have that effect!) Without that, the current women’s team may not have got the advantage of professionalism that they enjoy. Guha’s retirement may not have the same implications as Dravid’s, but it is an important marker all the same.

Dunedin, day one

I confess, I missed a lot of the play yesterday. Prior engagements (it’s been a busy week) meant that I was only ever going to the first half or so of the play and of course it rained. I did manage to keep up on Cricinfo though and what I saw was very impressive from New Zealand. I did say that I thought they could spring a surprise and it seems like South Africa didn’t expect their bowling to be as good as it was. There’s also the possibility, of course, that South Africa were undercooked, having not played any first class warmup matches. Regardless of the reason, South Africa are 191-7 overnight and whilst they are by no means out of the Test it does make things a lot more interesting than they might have been. They have the bowling to win anyway, and I still expect that they will, but New Zealand are putting up a good fight and sound like a very confident team at the moment.

New Zealand are also at home. It should not make a massive difference as the conditions there are similar to those in South Africa, but it does put them on the right side of a very interesting stat: of the 36 Tests that have been played in the last 12 months, touring sides have won only six and lost 20. South Africa are actually not included in that as they have not played a Test overseas in the past 12 months, but it is still an interesting sign of just how difficult it has been for teams overseas recently.