Tag: England

The Oval, day one: Eng 267-3

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

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

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

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

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

England v South Africa preview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The continuing story of Kevin Pietersen

A few weeks ago, Kevin Pietersen announced that he was retiring from ODIs and, by necessity due to a clause in his contract, T20s. He was also unhappy with the ECB not allowing him to continue to play T20s. At the time I defended him and I stand by that. England’s ODI schedule is insane and KP is one of the few players to compete in all three formats. I think the ECB could have been more flexible. Unfortunately, it was reported in the Telegraph today that Pietersen has dropped his seemingly reasonable position and instead gone with a crazy egomaniacal one.

There is no conceivable justification for wanting to miss two Test matches to play in the IPL. He cannot claim that he needs a rest, he cannot claim that he needs to spend time with his family. The IPL may be a Mickey Mouse tournament where luck plays a larger role than skill, but it still cannot be classified as a ‘rest’. And unless his family move to India I think it will mean more time away from them for KP. This is all about the fact that he wants more money and more time in the ‘glamour’ of the IPL. It also shows a vastly inflated sense of his own importance if he at all thinks that Flower and co will even consider it. They were happy enough to cut him loose from the T20 side the first time; what on earth makes KP think they will agree to take him back at the cost of a ridiculous demand? His arrogance is simply breathtaking; he would do well to remember that it is only because of his career with England that he is at all valuable in the IPL.

Taking it as a certainty that Flower will only delay in refusing Pietersen’s demand for as long as it takes him to stop laughing, it will be interesting to see what Pietersen’s next move is. There would seem to be every chance that he will take a leaf out of Gayle’s book and refuse to sign a central contract with England later this year. Whilst it would be disappointing to lose out on such a talented batsman, Pietersen is rapidly starting to become more trouble than he is worth. If he decides that he can get the fame and adulation which he values so highly in the IPL alone then I would simply say ‘good riddance’. He is also more than welcome to go back to South Africa, they seldom if ever play matches that conflict with the IPL. However this saga ends, I think we will soon see exactly where Pietersen’s loyalties lie.

Why are we still talking about Bopara?

The England squad for the first Test against South Africa is set to be announced tomorrow morning at 09.30 BST. There is not much of note, England are untroubled by injury, and the only discussion is about whether Ravi Bopara will be included. The media seem to think it is a fait accompli that he will and I fear they may be right. The apparent reason for this is utterly absurd, however: it seems that Ravi Bopara will be given what will now be a fourth chance due to a combination on Jonny Bairstow’s failure (note that Bopara has three of those to Bairstow’s one) and Bopara’s good form in the ODIs.

The notion that ODI form should be a reason for Test selection is utterly maddening, yet it is seemingly very common. The England selectors seem to have overlooked the fact that there is no number six at the moment precisely because the first person they tried there, Eoin Morgan, failed at the Test level after excelling at ODIs! In fact, Morgan was picked almost purely on his ODI record; his first class record is distinctly average. The fact that he is not batting at six himself shows the folly of picking players on limited overs runs. It is all well and good to say that a player looks ‘assured’ or whatever adjective one prefers, but the fact is that the styles of batting are very different and ought to be incomparable. Just look at how England (and Cook and KP in particular) fared against Pakistan’s bowling in the Tests and ODIs in the UAE in January and February. They are different games.

The other argument for why Bopara ought to be picked is a more reasonable, but still flawed, one. It is that he has done well in the County Championship this season, which he has. He averages 66 from five matches with two hundreds. However, this must be balanced against his previous Test failures and the fact that he is playing against second division attacks this season. There are two players in the first division, and even Joe Root in D2, with a better average than Bopara and who have not yet had a chance at Test cricket. Nick Compton is the obvious one with his incredible start to the season and Rikki Clarke even averages 70. Slightly below Bopara, Joe Denly averages 57 for Middlesex. There is no reason why one should give a fourth chance to Bopara when there are better qualified candidates who have never had a single chance. In fact, there is little reason to even drop Bairstow. Morgan was given over a year to prove himself; it would be very harsh on the much more talented Bairstow to discard him after only three real innings.

If Bopara is selected, as seems very likely, I will hope he does well. I would like him to repay the selectors seemingly insane faith in him and prove me wrong. But I am not at all confident and I think it is very unfair on other players. We will have to see what happens starting on 19 July, but if Bopara fails again, this has to be his last chance.

ODI success

England have now managed to win ten consecutive ODIs, not counting two that were rained off. Even though it comes on the back of losing five in a row in India, it is still quite remarkable. England are not renown for being a successful ODI side and whilst there is still some way yet to go the odds on them winning the Champions Trophy next year are likely fairly short. England still need to show they can perform over the long term (it was not so long ago that we were being hammered in Australia and the World Cup) but this is still promising as this success comes after England seemingly switched to a new ODI tactic.

It is this which is particularly interesting about England’s ODI improvement because they almost seem to be turning back the clock and playing an early nineties style of ODIs. Whilst England have never been particularly good at the format it is with the modern style of having big hitters at the top of the order at which England have really struggled. (There is, of course, the factor of actual team skill to be considered, but it is worth noting that England went to the semi-finals or final of every World Cup before Sri Lanka started the big hitting trend in in the 1996 tournament and have not gone past the quarter-finals since.) Instead, England have at the top of the order two players in Bell and Cook who are technically sound enough to score fairly quickly against the two new balls without taking a lot of risks. England do not score quite as quickly in the powerplay as perhaps they would if they were constantly trying to hit the ball over the top, but they do a very good job at scoring quickly enough whilst keeping wickets in hand. During their winning run, England have never lost more than one wicket during the initial ten over powerplay and usually scored around fifty runs. They have been remarkably consistent about this too; there is almost no change in the scores before and after KP retired. The openers also average over sixty in that time, meaning that England are very consistently going into the second half of their innings with quite a few runs on the board and almost all of their wickets in hand. This plays very well to England’s strengths and I think is a very intelligent strategy. It is almost a Test style of play and in fact England have eight Test players in their first choice ODI XI with two of the absences being enforced due to retirement. It is a strategy does not usually result in huge scores, but rather consistently above average ones. With England’s great strength across all formats being their bowling they are very seldom going to concede more than 275 in an innings.

There has been some question as to whether England can keep this up in the subcontinent, but it is worth pointing out that actually the first four matches in this winning streak were in the subcontinent-esque conditions of the UAE. A more important question, I think, is whether England can keep it up at all. I used the word ‘consistently’ a lot above and I think it has been a huge factor in England’s success (their consistency, not my use of the word). If that continues I think England will continue to regularly win, but the problem is that England have tended to be an incredibly mercurial ODI team. If something throws the team off their stride, an injury to one of the top order for instance, I really don’t know how they would react. The retirement of KP does not seem to have shaken them at all, however, which is promising. On the whole, I think we can expect a strong showing from England in the Champions Trophy next year, but I would not want to venture any sort of prediction beyond that.

Poor preparation

With now exactly two weeks before the start of the abbreviated series against South Africa, I have been thinking about scheduling again. Obviously I am cross and have been for some time that the series is only three matches. Even without questioning the ECB’s rationale in playing five ODIs against Australia (though it is a very foolish rationale) the scheduling is poor.

That the series against South Africa is too short is not in doubt. It is the number one side in the world playing the number two side with the winner getting the top spot. To play it only over three matches is lunacy; it ought to be at least four. What is maddening is that the schedule could have easily accommodated a full length Test series and the ECB’s desired ODIs. Even if there were no way to squeeze in seven Tests and 13 ODIs (and the only reason that there is not is because of the World T20 and even then it’s close) then the arrangement could have and should have been different. For one thing, there was no need for a third Test against the West Indies. Whilst no one could have predicted so far ahead of time that it would have been a washout anyway, almost everyone managed to predict that it was going to be a dead rubber. I am no fan of two Test series, but in this case it would have been very much the lesser of two evils. A far better option, however, would have been to simply reduce the number of ODIs being played against South Africa and the West Indies. We are playing a combined eight matches against them, it would have been very easy to cut out three and play a usual seven Test/ten ODI summer.

Those solutions assume we have to play those five ODIs against Australia this summer for the ECB to accomplish its goal of preparing England for the World Cup, but that is not even true. These ODIs are actually supposed to be more for Australia’s benefit than England’s; it is allowing them to prepare for the Champions Trophy in reciprocation for England playing in Australia ahead of the World Cup. But the Champions Trophy is next year and we are playing the normal Ashes related ODIs against Australia then anyway. Surely Australia would prepare better by simply having those ODIs moved in front of the Champions Trophy, just as England’s matches in Oz will immediately precede the World Cup. This seems like a solution that would not only allow us to play four (or five) Tests against South Africa like we ought to, but also to allow the ECB to get their desired pre-World Cup preparation and actually improve Australia’s pre-Champions Trophy preparation.

It is, of course, a bit late to be complaining about fixtures that were set over a year ago, but the reason I bring it up is because I think England may not only have robbed the fans of a good series, but also put themselves at a bit of a disadvantage by playing so much white ball cricket ahead of an important Test series. England will go into the first Test against South Africa with many of their players having played seven limited overs matches and no significant red ball cricket since the end of the second Test. Strauss at least will play a bit for Somerset and I am hoping Jimmy and KP (both of whom are missing some or all of the series against Oz) will play in the Surrey v Lancashire match at Guildford the week before the Test series starts, though I am not optimistic. It probably won’t be a massive problem for England, but it is a bit troubling especially given how good at preparation Flower and Strauss usually are. It is worth remembering that when England were playing warmup matches before the 2010/11 Ashes, Australia were playing ODIs against Sri Lanka. This was not the difference in the series, England were always going to be far too good for Australia, but it was another advantage given to England. With the series against South Africa looking like it may be a very close one and every difference magnified due to the shortness of the series, this is certainly an area where England should have done better.

England v Italy suggestions

England play Italy in the last of the quarter-finals tomorrow. It’s hard to say who are the favourites; England have done better, but in an overall worse group. It is I think certainly far to say that England will need to come up with a far better performance than they did against Ukraine in the last group match.

In that match England sat back for long periods of time and whilst they did do a good job of soaking up the pressure, they never looked particularly comfortable. They looked weak in the midfield and very weak in attack. The one goal came rather fortuitously and even more fortuitously for Rooney who had been sub-par. He was not helped, however, by the midfielders putting balls into the box that were much better suited for someone like Carroll. I wanted Carroll to start before the match and he probably would have buried a couple of chances that Rooney did not, but the other players on the pitch should have known who was up front and adjusted accordingly. England were also a bit fortunate with a goal not being given against them, but it was a case of two wrongs making a right: the striker had been offside anyway. It was a victory, and ultimately more than they needed with France losing 2-0, but not convincing and it seems unlikely that such a performance will be enough for a win over Italy.

For that match, I think England need to start Carroll alongside Rooney. Rooney looked like he should have come off the bench against Ukraine, but hopefully now he has shaken off some of that rust. He and Carroll offer contrasting options in attack and I think the combination of them will suit England well. The obvious person to leave out would be Milner who has not done much so far, but our midfield looked weak anyway against Ukraine and a 4-3-3 might not help matters. That said, I think part of the reason for the midfield being weak was that they had little desire to attack. The strategy was to sit back and let Ukraine have the ball. A 4-3-3 might give some encouragement to the midfielders to get the ball and go forward. In the end, I would leave out Milner and play Walcott in his stead with Welbeck the unlucky man. (Though a probable sub.) There is a good argument to be made that Walcott’s pace is best used in reserve against tiring defenders, but I think England will need to play at a higher tempo against Italy from the word go and Walcott is a good way to do that.

If England play well, they can certainly win; Italy did not look terribly convincing in their group matches. I would put England slight favourites and am guessing a 2-1 scoreline.

England v India preview

The Indian women’s team are in England this summer for two T20s and five ODIs. They return having played in the quadrangular series last season and fared quite poorly then. For England, it will be the first series since the retirement of Isa Guha. To say that the smart money in this series is on England would be an understatement. More correct would be to say that the sane money is on an England side who won all ten completed T20s they have played since the start of last summer and nine out of ten ODIs.

England have had the better results for the very simple reason that they have had the better players. If one makes a direct comparison of players, all the lists are dominated by Englishwomen. In the T20s, the two best averages and strike rates over the past twelve months belong to Sarah Taylor and the captain Charlotte Edwards. Looking farther back, over the past two years, India do not have a single batsman who averages over 25, has a strike rate over fifty and has scored at least a hundred runs. England have three. India have an excellent T20 bowler in Jhulan Goswami, but over the past twelve months she has been second best to Anya Shrubsole in wickets per match, average and economy. England also have a much better attack overall; Goswami has not been well supported by her colleagues.

The comparison of ODI statistics is even more dramatic. Each side has played ten ODIs in the past twelve months in which time England have had five centurions and India none. England have also had nine scores between fifty and a hundred to India’s eight. Most damningly, of batsmen who have scored at least 100 runs total there are three Englishwomen who average over fifty, but the top Indian average is a mere 33. As in the T20 stats, India are able to claw a little bit back in the bowling department. England still have a clear advantage, however, especially with Katherine Brunt returning after being rested for the tour to New Zealand.

This should be a fairly straightforward victory for England. They are literally a professional side and are on home soil. On paper at least, India are simply outclassed. Given the superior backing that the England side have, it is probably unfair to expect too much from India. Unfortunately there will be no Tests; those seem to be reserved for the Ashes now. (It is probably just as well for India, however, seeing how their men’s side did in England last summer!) In the seven matches that will be played, I expect England to win both T20s and at least four of the five ODIs. There is no reason why they cannot pull off a whitewash, but all of the limited overs formats can get a bit unpredictable.

Squad rotation

With England winning the first two ODIs fairly effortlessly, the main talking point ahead of the third has been that like in the Tests England are resting important members of the squad for the dead rubber. In the Test series I was very much against this. Whilst it was a lovely opportunity for Finn and Onions, England were a clearly reduced side and would have had a tough time had the rain not ruined all. (I will note for the sake of fairness that the match was already all but gone when the decision was made to rest Broad.) I am not nearly as opposed in this case, however, and would actually rest players a bit more.

One of the main reasons to oppose rotation in Test matches is that there are no unimportant Tests. (There are other good reasons as well, but that is one of the main ones.) This is not the case in ODIs however and in fact I am rather sympathetic to the argument that there are no important ODIs. A Test is the highest form of the game and is remembered very differently to an ODI. The success or otherwise of a tour is marked by Test results; last summer there would have been a very real difference between whitewashing India and only winning 3-0 or 3-1. But England’s win in the subsequent ODI series made no difference and for me at least was forgot almost before it was over. This is partly due to the format itself and partly due to the World Cup stripping the bilateral series of meaning. (After all, what does it matter if you lose every bilateral series if you win the World Cup?) Every team should certainly do everything they can to win every Test, but it is much harder to say that of ODIs.

Another reason for resting ODI players is that there are so many more ODIs than Tests. (Which is it’s own problem, of course.) This summer England will play six Tests and 13 ODIs. Over the winter it will be a more reasonable seven Tests and ten ODIs, before having to play a Mickey Mouse tournament at home next summer in addition to the bilateral ODIs. Few if any of those matches will have any real meaning and I actually think it would be a very bad idea to try to play the same, or nearly the same, XI in all of them. There is no reason to risk the players getting an injury. If it is used periodically, ie: not just for dead rubbers, it seems like the most logical approach.

The main argument against resting players is that it does not seem fair on the playing public to get a reduced XI. This is a reasonable concern, I think. I am not advocating playing a second XI, however, nor do I think Flower and Cook ever would do so. To play a different seam attack or a few young batsmen is not a dramatic blow to England’s chances of winning, especially if the rotation is done consistently and constantly. The shorter format is random enough anyway that there is no reason to suspect that spectators would get a reduced performance. I also think that the spectators are smart enough to understand the logic of rotation and few if any would be going to see just one player. If even football fans can do this then I am sure cricket fans can.