England have won!

And won convincingly to take an unassailable 2-0 lead in the series! After losing the toss and being put into bat they put up a formidable 315-6 off their fifty overs. Charlotte Edwards led the way with 138 off 139 balls. She was ably supported by Sarah Taylor who scored 77 off 63 balls and with whom she shared a partnership of 159 (at eight an over). South Africa always had trouble keeping up with the required rate. By the time they reached the halfway point of their innings they were only two wickets down, but the asking rate was almost eight an over and their only hope was to keep wickets in hand. When they lost four wickets in three overs shortly thereafter the match was all over bar the shouting. South Africa failed to bat out their fifty overs; they were bowled out for 219 in the 48th over to give England a 2-0 lead in the series. The wickets were shared around the England bowlers, with Laura Marsh, Danni Hazell, Arran Brindle and Danni Wyatt taking two apiece and Heather Knight taking one. The win secures the series for England, and they will go for the whitewash on Tuesday.

The England men also ‘played’, insofar as they appeared on a cricket pitch during a scheduled match. The match was very similar to the second one. England batted first and only scored 220. They had a decent start, but once again had a torrid time against spin (Bell still didn’t play) and ended up well short of a competitive target. The bowlers did better this time; Tim Bresnan conceded only forty runs off his ten overs and Steven Finn had another good match, taking 3-45 off his ten. They never had a defensible target, however, and India could get the runs off the other bowlers. India won with ten overs to spare, in a familiar thrashing.

I only watched part of the men’s match. There are only so many times one can watch such a one sided match (at least when one’s side is on the losing end) and I had only had two and a half hours of sleep anyway. But I’m a bit disappointed that the women’s match was not broadcast anywhere that I could find. Even Cricinfo’s live updates were minimalist. I know that there’s not a lot of demand for it, but England have a very good women’s side (even if they seldom play Test matches) and it would have been quite nice to be able to at least listen to the match live. Two and a half years ago, just after England’s women won the World Cup, (for the third time, making them the single most successful England team in any sport) Claire Taylor wrote an article for the Telegraph about the need for coverage of the women’s game. It’s quite good and all the points are still relevant. There’s another reason why the England women’s side should get media coverage though: They are very good. They play cricket to a very high standard and it is always pleasant to watch good cricket. The broadcasters don’t seem to realise this.

Catches win matches

Pakistan ought to have won the first test against Sri Lanka. The match was drawn despite the fact that Sri Lanka were bowled out for 197 in the first innings and it never rained. Sri Lanka fought very well in the second innings, Kumar Sangakkara scored a brilliant double ton, but Pakistan did not allow themselves enough time to force a result. Perhaps they had watched the Cardiff test and assumed that Sri Lanka would roll over again. Whatever the reason, Pakistan didn’t make much of an effort to kick on in their first innings. The only batsman who looked like he was batting for a declaration was Misbah-ul-Haq who scored a quick 46 before being unfairly given out. That dismissal made it 436-4, but the new batsman, Asad Shafiq proceeded to crawl to 26 off of 94 deliveries! To cap his disaster of an innings he ran out his partner, the double centurion Taufeeq Umar. It was a dreadful innings, especially in the circumstance. When Umar Gul was out for a duck it brought the declaration on 511-6. Pakistan had scored at less than three an over. Although Shafiq was the worst culprit, both Azhar Ali and Younis Khan had strike rates of only 35.

This left Pakistan just over two days to bowl out Sri Lanka with a lead of 314. They still ought to have done this, although the conditions favoured the batsman. They got one wicket before close on the third day; a fortunate one as Tony Hill unfairly gave Paranavitana out LBW first ball. They took only four wickets on day four however and dropped five catches. They put down another on the last day, though by that time Sangakkara and Prasanna Jayawardene had already steered Sri Lanka to safety. Sangakkara’s 211 will have been particularly galling; he was reprieved multiple times.

I’ll be interested to see how Pakistan go from here. The next test is on Wednesday in Dubai and the conditions are unlikely to improve. They gambled a bit by playing Junaid Khan in this test ahead of Wahab Riaz, but he very much justified his place and was arguably Pakistan’s best bowler in the match. (Umar Gul is the other possibility.) I doubt Pakistan will make any changes, they played well overall, but they need to improve their fielding.

England can relax now

Yesterday England failed to defend 298 in a 50-over ODI. It means they trail 0-3 in the five match series and have lost 13 of their last 15 matches against India in India. The pitch was pretty good and India are a good side, but England ought to have won. They were anchored by Jonathan Trott’s 98 off 116 balls and supported by Samit Patel, who scored 70 off 43 balls. (Patel also had an good match with the ball, taking 0-50 off his ten overs and winning a motorbike for his efforts.) The usual furore over Jonathan Trott erupted again with some thinking that a strike rate just under 85 is too slow for an ODI. This is nonsense, about which I blogged at the time. The real blame belongs to England’s bowlers and fielding.

Finn bowled well taking the new ball, but Bresnan and Dernbach were charged with bowling at the death and they had absolute shockers. Indeed, they’ve had a very poor series. Bresnan has taken 4-169 at 6.94 an over and Dernbach has taken 1-168 at 6.54 an over. As the strike leader and primary death bowler they have to do better than that. They had an indefensible total in the second ODI, but lost their grip on the match late in the innings in the first and third. India scored 300 both times, but shouldn’t have either time. The bowlers weren’t helped by the fielding, which was lacklustre at best. England allowed singles where there should have been dot balls and twos where there should have been singles, not to mention the occasional grotesque misfield for four. Kieswetter had a particularly bad match; he dropped two chances and then failed to effect what should have been an easy run out in the penultimate over.

It was this over that took the match away from England. Despite a general lack of discipline in the field and lack of incisiveness in the bowling, India needed thirty off the final three overs. Knife edge stuff, but England had taken wickets in the 38th, 39th and 42nd overs and steadily forced the required run rate up to something defensible. India had a good 48th over against Finn (who was England’s best bowler in the match) to get the equation down to 17 off the last 12 balls. Then the wheels fell off. Jadeja ought to have been run out off the first ball of the 49th over as he tried for a suicidal second run, but Kieswetter tread on the stumps and was unable to correctly put down the wicket. The wicket would have made England clear favourites. Dernbach’s radar was off, as it had been throughout the match, and he went on to bowl a wide and then a no-ball on height. By the time the over finally finished India needed just seven to win and Bresnan had no hope in the final over. (Not that he bothered to make it close.)

I say England can relax now because the last two matches of the series will be dead rubbers, giving them a chance to ring some changes. (They named an unchanged side in the first three.) The most obvious change is to bring in Ian Bell. I, and others, have been calling for it since the first match. I think he’ll come in for Kieswetter, who has done himself few favours in this series. Borthwick may also come into the side, though if so he would probably replace Patel and Patel has done very well in the last two matches after a poor start to the tour. He may instead come in for Bopara who hasn’t done much so far. I definitely expect Dernbach will miss out after having a very poor series. His replacement would either be Graham Onions or Stuart Meaker; probably Meaker since he was in the original party whilst Onions is a replacement for Chris Woakes. There are two matches left; time enough for each to get a game, but I’d actually like to see them both play and Bresnan miss out. This would be an ambitious move by Flower which would send a firm message to the under-performing bowlers. With Anderson and Broad both likely to return for the next ODI series it will make for good competition for places.

A walk or a Trott?

Jonathan Trott splits opinion more than most cricketers and indeed more than most sportsmen. This is particularly true in the ODIs, where he is either a brilliant accumulator of runs or a limpet clogging up the innings. Today he has scored 98 not out off 116 balls. He could have been run out very early after a huge mix-up with KP but the Indian’s fielding was awry. (Which was surprising in that they’ve been quite sharp in this series but pretty familiar for anyone who watched them in England.) His strike rate in this innings was pretty close to his career average and 98 runs in any match is not something at which to be sniffed. But the impression of scoring slowly still remains.

This is, I am convinced, harsh. England scored 298-4 in fifty overs, just a hair shy of a run a ball. Trott was not far off this rate, but when compared to KP’s 64 off 61 balls or Patel’s unbeaten 70 off 43 it certainly looks slow. But without Trott sticking around and keeping the scoreboard ticking over those innings may not have been possible. Bopara never looked set and if Patel had to contend with that at the other end he may not have been able to get himself going. Yes, Trott could have kicked on more, but that isn’t how he plays. When he’s got out cheaply England have collapsed. It’s important to have people like Kieswetter, Pietersen and Bairstow who can score at better than a run a ball, but it needs a Cook or a Trott to hold up the other end. You need to score runs to win any cricket match. Trott has been one of the few batsmen to consistently do this in ODIs and he ought to be recognised as one of England’s best ODI batsmen.

This, that and the other

Some short thoughts on the various matches I’ve been watching.

South Africa v Australia: First ODI
As I type this South Africa are 84-6 after sixteen overs needing 223 to win off 29 overs. Australia were marginally on top at the interval and Cummins put them firmly on top with two wickets in the eighth over. They haven’t looked back since. The rain was disappointing but Duckworth-Lewis gave a fair target. It’s also been really nice to see the lack of adverts on the ground. There is a plain rope around the ground and the bowlers run ups are marked with CSA’s facebook and twitter sites. Hopefully in the second ODI they will find a way to project their status updates and tweets on to the pitch. I know the technology exists.

Pakistan v Sri Lanka: First Test
Pakistan are in absolute control of this match after losing only one wicket on the second day. Sri Lanka bowled loosely at the start and it doesn’t look like they ever really recovered. (Though I could be wrong, I went to bed after about an hour. In my defence it was 02.00 in my time zone.) We saw in England that Sri Lanka no longer have any bowlers of note. Unless they can find someone to do what Stuart Broad did at Trent Bridge last summer it’s just a matter of hoping that they can hold on for a draw. Unfortunately for them, I believe it rains slightly less in the UAE than it does in England.

Marsielle v Arsenal
I have no idea how this match is going because Fox prefer to show matches between continental sides about whom I care little. (Not so little that I’m not watching between overs, mind.) So I get to watch Barcelona play Czech champions Viktoria instead. Yesterday I got to watch Inter Milan play Lille instead of either match involving a Manchester based side. Even more infuriatingly the Arsenal match is being shown on a delay, so they refused to even tell me the halftime score or show highlights. I would, of course, just watch the match later, except they’re showing it at the same time as the World Series. And it’s not like they don’t know. It’s the same broadcaster. They had an advert for the World Series at halftime. It’s times like this that I’m kind of glad that Liverpool did not make Europe, because if I’d had to miss the Reds in favour of some continental side I would be be very cross instead of just mildly irritated.

Rangers v Cardinals: Game One
Both sides have had very good offensive performances and won their respective Championship Series in six games. They scored a lot of their runs at opposite ends of their matches though, with St Louis consistently jumping out in front early and the Rangers blowing games open with late home runs. The big story for their Cardinals has been their bullpen performing brilliantly after some shaky starting pitching. They might have some trouble getting away with that against the powerful Rangers offence however. The Cardinals have home field advantage which may be important as the Rangers will definitely fancy their chances in their very small park. (They were 4-1 at home in the first two rounds.) I am tipping the Rangers to win, as unless the Cardinals’ starters improve they will find themselves in big holes early on.

KHAAAAN!

I’ve known for a while that Junaid Khan was a very good bowler. Specifically I’ve known this since he played for Lancashire in the FLT20 and was probably the single biggest reason why we made it to Finals Day. (And his subsequent absence probably cost us the semi-final, but there was nothing to be done about that.) So I like to see him do well, especially in the longer form. And did he do well! He took 5-38 as Sri Lanka were skittled for 197, and Pakistan were without Amir and Asif!

Pakistan won the toss and rather surprisingly elected to field first on a flat deck and in very hot conditions. (Though the match is in the UAE, so all conditions are very hot.) Sri Lanka, however, never got going and went into lunch on 50-1. Khan was actually the second change bowler (Mohammad Hafeez, a spinner, came on first) and did not take a wicket until the middle of the 49th over when he had Mahela Jayawardene caught at first slip. The wicket made Sri Lanka 112-5, with the first four having been shared around the other three main bowlers. Very soon thereafter Khan was on a hat trick. He clean bowled Prasanna Jayawardene with a brilliant yorker (so familiar to those who watched Lancs in the FLT20 this season) off the last ball of the 49th over to give him two wickets in four deliveries and then began the 50th over by trapping Ragnara Herath LBW. This was the nadir of the Sri Lankan innings with the score 114-7. Khan didn’t get his hat-trick and Angelo Mathews, the only batsman to look fluent in the innings, steadied the ship with Suranga Lakmal in a partnership of 54. Gul ultimately broke the partnership and Khan quickly blew away the last two with pace.

It’s only the first day of the first match of a series of course, but I expect England will be looking on with some interest. The England v Pakistan series last summer belonged to the bowlers, but I certainly didn’t think the UAE leg would. That may still be the case, of course, as I expect England to bat better than Sri Lanka did. (Not that Sri Lanka batted abysmally, though it wasn’t great, more that England are simply more talented.) But it does mean that England will have to bat sensibly and cannot take big runs for granted. The bowlers will certainly have their work cut out for them and this shows that if the batsman lose their concentration England could find themselves up against it very quickly.

Lunchtime thoughts

England have just been bowled out for 237 with ten balls left to start the second ODI. It doesn’t look like a good score and paper and I very much doubt that it will be in fact. Though to be fair, England were 0-2 to start with neither Cook nor Kieswetter scoring. Ian Bell did not play, contrary to my hopes, (though not my expectations). Most of the damage today was done by the seamers, however, so Bell might not have been such an asset.

England did bat better than they did on Friday, but this time their middle order got in and got out consistently. After the two opening ducks the lowest score was Trott’s 34 (off 37 balls, the fastest of the recognised batsmen) and the highest was KP’s 46. On Friday it was brainless, today it was just lazy. The bowling was reasonably good, and just about good enough to take advantage of the lack of application shown by England’s batsmen.

Two hundred and thirty-seven may be enough, if England bowl better than they did on Friday, the pitch may deteriorate for Swann and Patel. They will have to take early wickets though, because as we saw on Friday if India have wickets in hand late they can be deadly.

Delhi Belly

The second India v England ODI starts in a few hours. England played poorly and were hammered in the first one, but I think they’ll do better this time. Andy Flower does not seem like the type to tolerate the kind of sloppiness England displayed throughout the first ODI and I’m sure there will have been a lot of work put in since then. England can take some hope from the fact that they also looked set to lose the first ODI in England before the rains came. England shook that off well, so we know England can certainly come back in this series.

Beyond the obvious ‘playing better’ the biggest thing I think that England can do to improve today is to play Ian Bell. On the face of it, the decision not to play him in the first ODI makes sense. Although he has matured into one of the most elegant test batsmen in the world right now, his ODI record is distinctly mediocre. He is, however, the best player of spin in the England side. England looked set to make a game of it on Friday before collapsing to India’s spinners. There are other things that England could do and may do, but I think this is the most important.

Of course, to do so is to bring up the question of who should be dropped in Bell’s favour. Kevin Pietersen has had the least success in ODIs recently, but after sitting out the home series it would be a shock if he missed another one. KP also has the ability to take a match away from the opposition, even if he hasn’t been showing it in ODIs recently. India would probably love to see him dropped, so I would keep him in. There have been a lot of suggestions that Trott should be dropped, as he bats too slowly. This is a bit harsh though, it’s more the case that he bats steadily. His career strike rate is is 78, which isn’t blistering, but it’s respectable, especially coupled with his career average of 51. Kieswetter may be an option. He’s in the side because of his ability to hit out at the top of the order, but he rarely goes on after making a start. Jonny Bairstow, who looks like getting an extended run after an excellent start to his career, is naturally a wicketkeeper so Kieswetter could be dropped on the basis of his batting. Dropping Bopara would be harsh, as he has settled into the ODI side and had an excellent summer.

Taking all that into consideration, I would at least experiment with dropping Kieswetter and promoting KP to open. England briefly tried that during the World Cup (before KP left with an injury) and it went reasonably well. KP scored at better than a run a ball against India and Ireland and only failed against South Africa in a match where almost every batsman failed. I would keep Trott at three and put Bell at four. Bairstow would then keep and bat sixth. Another possibility to consider is dropping Samit Patel and playing with one fewer bowler. I don’t really like this, as it would leave England with just one spinner and force Bopara, Pietersen and possibly Bell himself to bowl ten overs between them. Were anyone to be dropped purely on performance, however, it would likely be Patel.

I doubt any of this will actually happen. Kieswetter is established in his role as keeper, and hasn’t failed so badly that he would be dropped on his own merits (or lack thereof). But more than that, Andy Flower has tended to stick with sides and not make rash changes. On the whole I applaud this, but in a five match series England cannot afford another drubbing. Ian Bell represents England’s best change of negating India’s spin and I think it is a mistake not to play him.

Another bloody IPL

I almost get tired of ranting about the BCCI. Really, I don’t ask for them to be saints. They’re a cricket board; basic competence and a lack of cartoonish villainy is all I really want. They consistently fail to do either. No boards are free of bureaucratic cock-ups but theirs have been worse than most. In the last year they have failed to get their prime stadium ready for the World Cup and have had a long and seemingly farcical attempt to police the finances of the IPL.

Of course, it’s the IPL where they dismally fail my second request. Whilst dithering about in their investigations and occasionally throwing out a franchise they have still seen fit to make sure that the IPL does not co-operate with the rest of the cricket calendar. This year they have announced their longest ever schedule, almost two full months, and as usual it conflicts with multiple international series. Also as usual it’s the West Indies who look to be suffering the most. This year the IPL will conflict with their hosting of Australia and their tour of England. It’s another blow for a board deep in financial troubles as they will have to convince their players not to follow Chris Gayle in turning their back on the national side. If they fail, as they have done recently, they will then have to convince the public to pay to watch a 2nd XI. Both are uphill battles, but ones the WICB must win to keep their finances from slipping farther into disarray.

To be fair to the BCCI there aren’t any holes in the international calendar so they have to conflict with somebody. The problems with their current approach are two-fold: Firstly, tacking on another two weeks to a tournament for which there already isn’t enough time is either spectacularly stupid or spectacularly arrogant. Either is possible with the BCCI but given their history I’m leaning toward the latter. Secondly, the BCCI consistently chose to conflict with the West Indies home schedule. The WICB are up against it as is, they don’t need to conflict with the IPL every year. And yet they do. If the BCCI were to wait a few weeks and conflict with England’s home series (more than they already do, I mean) there would be fewer problems. English players don’t play in the IPL very much anyway, if they missed the whole tournament it would not be a significant change and certainly a difficult one. (This would still pose a problem for the West Indies next year, as they tour England, but this way the conflict would be shared around more.)

Instead the BCCI don’t seem to care. They know when there are international matches being played, the schedules are not a secret. But they plough ahead anyway, not even oblivious to the damage they cause but often (especially in the case of Lalit Modi) actually dismissive of it. They care only about themselves, their own coffers, their own tournament. Anything which conflicts with it must be moved or disrupted, lest it interfere with the holy IPL. Hopefully the other boards will manage to puncture their bubble before too long. I’m not optimistic.

New Zealand already have one crushing victory this weekend

New Zealand played the first T20 of their tour to Zimbabwe today. Earlier this year Zimbabwe beat Bangladesh in their one off test and thee matches to two in their ODI series. Then they were hammered by Pakistan in all formats. New Zealand should, of course, be rather closer to Pakistan than Bangladesh, but one can never be sure with teams that don’t play a lot. Their performance today, however, suggests that they are very much the stronger side.

New Zealand won the toss and bowled on a pitch that looked to have something in it for the quicks. Zimbabwe never really got going, and lost wickets at regular intervals. They ended up limping to 123-8, a possibly competitive total in the FLT20, but not so much in an international. Such is the nature of T20s though, that no chase is certain – Ask England, who chased 126 with five overs and ten wickets remaining one day, only to collapse to 88 all out chasing 114 two days later. New Zealand, helped by some poor Zimbabwean fielding, emulated the former performance. Zimbabwe dropped two catches after the powerplay ended. It probably didn’t change the result, but Brendan McCullum in paricular set about making Zimbabwe pay for their sloppiness. He scored 81 not out off 54 deliveries with five fours and six sixes. New Zealand won by ten wickets with 6.3 overs to spare.

Zimbabwe have been out of the international fold for a while, but they must do better than that. Still, it was only a T20 and as we saw with England one merciless thrashing does not a series win. The second and final T20 is on Monday and Zimbabwe could certainly bounce back.

I wonder how many in NZ actually watched a match that started around 01.00 Kiwi time. The All Blacks play the Wallabies tonight (New Zealand time, tomorrow morning UK and US time) and I suspect it’s receiving slightly higher billing in the antipodes. The All Blacks need to win because a France v Australia final would be too much.