Euro 2012 group permutations

The last round of group fixtures in Euro 2012 start today. Happily there is still quite a lot for which to play as the tournament has been a very good one so far. Here are the current permutations for all the groups, (assuming I worked everything out correctly):

Group A
No one is safe yet and all four teams can guarantee a place in the quarter-finals with a win tomorrow. Draws can see things get a bit hairy, however. For Russia, a draw is all they need to go through (and will send Greece out) and a win will see them top the group. If Greece can win and the Czech Republic draw with Poland, however, all three of Greece, Russia and the Czech Republic will finish on four points and the de facto tiebreaker will be goal difference*. This would rule the Czech Republic out unless Greece slaughter Russia by six goals or more. More practically, Greece would need to win by three goals or more to top the group in this scenario and cannot top the group if there is a positive result in the Poland v Czech Republic match. If Greece win and one of Poland of the Czech Republic win, that winner will top the group with the loser and Russia going out. In summary:
Russia – Win: top the group. Draw: advance and top the group if Poland draw or win by three goals or fewer. Lose: advance only if Poland and the Czech Republic draw with each other.
Czech Republic – Win: advance and top the group if Russia lose or draw. Draw: advance if Greece lose or draw. Lose: eliminated.
Poland – Win: advance and top the group if Russia lose. Draw: Eliminated. Lose: eliminated.
Greece – Win: advance and top the group if by more than three goals and Poland and Czech Republic draw with each other. Draw: eliminated. Lose: eliminated

Group B
Holland’s poor form has thrown this group open. The situation is similar to that of Group A: no one is yet safe, but Germany are the closest and can go through even with a loss. The only way for them to be eliminated is to lose by at least two goals and for Portugal to win. In such a scenario, Denmark would top the table with Portugal second and Germany third on goal difference. At the other side of the table, the only way for Holland to progress is to win by no fewer than two goals and for Germany to beat Denmark. Denmark can advance if they better Portugal’s result or if they beat Germany by two or more goals. If Portugal match or better the Danes’ result (or Germany are eliminated as above), it will be the Portuguese who will go through. In summary:
Germany – Win: top the group. Draw: top the group. Lose: advance if loss is by fewer than two goals or Portugal lose or draw.
Portugal – Win: advance and top the group if Denmark win, but by fewer goals. Draw: advance if Denmark draw or lose. Lose: advance only if loss is by one goal and Denmark lose by at least a goal†. (See additional footnote.)
Denmark – Win: advance and top group if by two or more goals and by more goals than Portugal or if Portugal do not win. Draw: advance if Portugal lose. Lose: advance if loss is by one goal and Portugal lose by one goal without scoring.
Holland – Win: Advance if by two or more goals and Denmark lose. Draw: eliminated. Loss: eliminated.

Group C
A slightly simpler group than the first two; here Ireland are already eliminated. Spain and Croatia are both on four points and the winner of their head to head matchup is guaranteed to top the group. Italy could advance with a win and and a positive result in the Croatia v Spain match. If that match is drawn, however, we could see another scenario in which three teams finish level on points if Italy beat Ireland. Here, all three teams would have drawn against the other and goals scored in their matches would be the first tiebreaker. Spain would be guaranteed to go through as they would finish level with Croatia and have a better overall goal difference (the next tiebreaker, see first footnote). A 1-1 draw would put all three teams level on goals and make overall goal difference the sole tiebreaker. This would mean that Italy would need to win by at least three goals against Ireland to advance and at least five goals to top the group. In summary:
Spain – Win: top the group. Draw: advance and top the group if Italy do not win or the score is 2-2 or higher (see above). Lose: advance if Italy do not win.
Croatia – Win: top the group. Draw: advance if Italy do not win or the score is 2-2 or higher. Lose: advance if Italy do not win.
Italy – Win: advance if either Spain or Croatia lose, top the group if Spain and Croatia draw 0-0. Draw: eliminated. Lose: eliminated.
Ireland – Already eliminated.

Group D
Similar to Group C in that there are two teams level on four points at the top, England and France, but for the bottom placed team, Sweden, the game is already up. The situation is much simpler, however, with France all but guaranteed already to go through and England guaranteed to go through with a win or a draw. England can advance with a loss and it is the only scenario in which France will miss out: if France and England both lose and France lose by a greater margin than England then Ukraine will top the group and England will be runner-up on overall goals scored. For Ukraine it is simple: they must win, but if they do they are guaranteed to progress. Both England and Ukraine can top the group if they win and France do not, whilst for England a draw and a French loss will also be enough. England can even top the group if France do win, but they will have to win by a greater margin than France. In summary:
France – Win: advance and top the group if England do not win or win by the same or a smaller margin. Draw: advance and top the group if England and Ukraine also draw. Lose: advance unless England also lose but by a smaller margin.
England – Win: advance and top the group if France do not win or win by a smaller margin. Draw: advance and top the group if France lose. Lose: Advance if France also lose and by a greater margin.
Ukraine – Win: Advance and top the group if France do not win. Draw: eliminated. Lose: eliminated.
Sweden – Already eliminated.

*The first tiebreaker in this tournament is not goal difference, but head-to-head result. However in this case all three teams would have the one win and one loss against the other two and thus the tiebreaker becomes goal difference in the matches between the teams. Since in this scenario all the teams will have drawn with Poland, the goal difference between them will be identical to the overall difference. The full tiebreaker criteria are in section VI, 8.07 here.

†Portugal can advance if they and Denmark both lose by one goal. They and Holland will all three be level with three points and a goal difference against each other of nought and the tiebreaker would then go to goals scored against the other teams. Portugal and Denmark each go into the match with three, but only Portugal have the ability to add to it in their match. Thus if they can score at least one goal in their loss, they will still advance in this case.

England v West Indies ratings

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

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

My individual marks (out of ten):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edgbaston, day four, Eng 221-5

Today could have been, and maybe should have been, a terribly dull day. With the first three days and the forecast for tomorrow making a result almost impossible, there was almost nothing for which to play. Instead, and fortunately, we got plenty about which to talk.

England started the day much as they finished the previous one. All that time they looked keenly aware that a result was not on the cards and not at all keen on the match. It would be easy to look at the scorecard and conclude that Finn and Onions are simply not Test quality and whilst there would be an element of truth to that, the reality is that they generally bowled quite well and the team let them down. Four catches were put down all told in the innings and the fields and tactics seemed slightly more defensive than usual. More than that though, the entire team just looked like they weren’t really there. Michael Vaughan made the good point on TMS that whilst England did not seem to miss the bowling of Jimmy, they did seem to miss his energy.

It would also be easy to say that England’s rotation policy is at fault here. That is certainly true, but we always knew we would miss Jimmy. Whilst I do not agree with the policy overall, once the first two days were lost I think it was a good idea. By playing Finn and Onions we got potentially important information on how they can fare at Test level and given that the match was overwhelmingly likely to end in a draw anyway, we did not lose much if anything. I think this is probably not at all far from what Flower was expecting to have happened (though perhaps not the poor fielding) and will consider it a success.

If this was a ‘bowl-off’ for a place against South Africa, Onions was the comfortable winner with 4-88. I doubt, however, whether this will be enough to get him in the XI for the Oval next month. England are still unlikely to play five bowlers, although I disagree with that policy, and Onions and Bresnan were still close enough that Bresnan’s batting will probably keep him in the side. Onions may have passed Finn in the pecking order, however.

During all this, Tino Best batted brilliantly to get the highest ever score by a number eleven in Tests. He was finally caught for 95, but it was his partner at the other end who sparked a bit of controversy. When Denesh Ramdin reached his century, he took a note out of his pocket and displayed it to the commentary box. The note suggested that Sir Vivian Richards stop criticising him. Whilst it was not a major point, it was poor form. The job of a commentator or analyst is to criticise at times and it was hardly as though the criticism of Ramdin had been unwarranted. It was a petty gesture and did take some of the gloss off the century.

England stumbled a bit in their reply and it was with this background that Sunil Narine came on for his first bowl in Test cricket. (He could have done so in April, but we’ll let that go for now…) I had heard before the match how he would be a threat to England, how he would make the West Indies competitive again. Which is why I wrote about why he should not be picked. (After which I heard even more support of Narine. As expected, the wicket was flat and England had worked him out after about an over. Narine took 0-70 in fifteen overs. He was not a wicket taking threat, he did not even trouble Finn when the latter came in as a nightwatchman, and he was not even vaguely keeping it tight. Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen were both treating him with contempt by the time he came off. By comparison, Marlon Samuels took 1-29 in nine overs. Welcome to Test cricket…

Edgbaston, day one three, WI 280-8

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

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

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

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

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

Euro 2012 preview

Euro 2012 starts this Friday. England go into the tournament with almost no expectation; even the new coach Roy Hodgson has tried to play down England’s chances. And having watched (most of, until I started to fall asleep) England’s recent friendlies I am inclined to agree. England won both of them, yes, but never looked better than scrappy. That’s okay if one can scrape out a win against an equal or better side, but a tough 1-0 victory against Norway is not really a credit. England’s squad, whilst not ridiculous, is far from inspiring. The only good move was to make Gerrard captain; apart from that the squad is made up of good players but only a few one would consider to be true international quality. (And I say that knowing full well the number of Liverpool players in the squad.)

The best news for England was probably the draw, which was relatively favourable. England are in Group D, which appears to be the second easiest after Group A. England will still have some difficulty actually topping the group, however, and it is by no means assumed that they will make it to the knockout rounds. The main opponent will be France and whilst les Bleus are unlikely to strike fear into any team until they can redeem themselves for the last World Cup, I would still be surprised to see England win. (Though I was not expecting the England rugby team to win in France during the Six Nations either.) England are also in the same group as Sweden, who England have not beat in a competitive match in some large number of years. There is also Ukraine. England should beat them, but they are good enough that if England don’t play well there is every chance that they could be held to a draw or even lose. Whilst one could see England finishing anywhere in the top three, my guess is that they will scrape to second. My second guess would be a third-place finish with topping the group a possibility, but an unlikely one.

The most interesting group should be Group B. A competitive Holland v Germany match is always a good thing, but this time it will possibly shape the entire tournament. With respect to Portugal and Denmark, the other two teams in Group B and certainly no pushovers, Holland and Germany are the strong favourites to make it out of the group and the set up of the knockout stages means that they will both have relatively easy quarter-final matches. Whoever finishes as runner up in the group, however, are likely to face Spain in the semi-finals whilst the group winners will have a much easier match against either the winner of Group D or the runner up in Group C. The winner of Group B should thus have as easy a path to the final as for which could be reasonably hoped and there is a good chance that the winner of the Holland v Germany match on the 13th will be that winner.

My prediction for the entire tournament is summarised in this bracket:

In more detail: Holland win their match against Germany and top Group B. Greece top Group A with Russia coming second, but neither provide significant opposition in the quarter-finals. Spain win Group C with the Republic of Ireland upsetting Italy to take the runner up spot. England play sloppily against Spain and lose, but give the impression that they would have had a chance if they had been more precise. Ireland have a chance to get some measure of revenge on France from 2010, but lose a fairly low quality match. Holland beat France relatively easily in one semi-final, whilst Germany and Spain dig in for a good match that Germany eventually win. The final is then an absolute cracker, but the Dutch reprise their group stage victory.

Five bowlers

I have said for some time that I think England should play five bowlers. At first glance, it looks a bit ridiculous. England have not consistently played five bowlers since the retirement of Freddie Flintoff. Since then, England have gone from being the fifth ranked Test team in the world to the first and have lost only one series, the recent one in the UAE. So why should we change a winning formula?

My answer is basically that it is inefficient. We have done very well with four bowlers, but a lot of that has been down to outstanding performances from our main players. Our batsmen have put up huge totals much more often than not and we have seldom been short a bowler. But not all of the batsmen have contributed. Specifically, we have not got a consistent contribution from the batsman at five or six since Collingwood and Bell were both in form against South Africa in 2009/10. This is something on which I touched during the last Test, but there is some important detail. First off is the definition of the ‘sixth batsman’. For a variety of reasons this need not be the person actually at six; the definition I am using is ‘the player most likely to have been dropped if a fifth full time bowler had been played’. I realise this is a subjective definition, but the numbers are actually so strong that the specifics hardly matter. For the avoidance of doubt I have used Morgan in England v Pakistan, Collingwood in the Ashes, Morgan in England v Sri Lanka and the first two England v India Tests, Bopara for the third and fourth England v India Tests, Morgan for Pakistan v England, Patel for Sri Lanka v England and Bairstow for the first two West Indies v England Tests.

This gives us 23 Tests (omitting those against Bangladesh) in which England have won 14 and lost six. In these Tests, the sixth batsmen have contributed 708 runs at an average of 22.84 and one century in 34 innings. The other ten players combine to average 39.66 with almost a century every ten innings and that is including the bowlers! The contrast is more drastic when one looks at the rest of the top six, plus Prior: they have an average of 43.23 with a century every 9.7 innings. In fact, the contribution of the sixth batsmen has been much more comparable to that of the bowlers. Since mid 2010, England’s seam trio plus Swann have combined to average 17.86 with one century, that of Stuart Broad in 2010. In other words, we have had a win/loss ratio over two despite consistently having a batsman who contributes only half of what his top-order colleagues do and only five runs more than the bowlers!

England are clearly not gaining anything by playing a sixth batsman and looking at the actual results of matches backs this up. Of the fourteen matches that England have won in the timeframe I am using, the closest was the five wicket victory in the most recent Lord’s Test. None of the run chases have involved the sixth batsman and when England have successfully defended a total it has never been by fewer than 196 runs (the margin of victory at Lord’s last year). The contribution of the sixth batsman has not only been statistically insignificant, the individual performances have not shifted any result into England’s favour.

The counter argument would point out that England not getting contributions from the sixth batsman in the past does not preclude them from doing so in the future and in any case, the four bowlers have been just as successful. That is all true, but whilst England have not been needing their sixth batsman, there have been times when they have appeared to need another bowling option. The first innings of the most recent Trent Bridge Test was one example: England were on the verge of effectively knocking the West Indies out of the Test, but with the ball going soft they were suddenly without wicket taking options. Bresnan was being hit around the ground, Swann was not getting appreciable turn on a first day pitch and Jimmy and Broad could only bowl short spells as they had to be held back for the new ball. Strauss was reduced to bowling Trott to get the overs in before the new ball was taken. Having a fifth bowler prevents this from happening. Not only are part-timers not needed, but there is variation to suit the conditions. Bresnan bowled very well in the second innings of that Test, but the conditions did not suit him as well in the first innings and England had no alternatives available.

England have nothing, or at lease very little, to lose by playing a fifth bowler. The main batsmen are capable of putting up a large score without further help and adding another world-class bowler to the attack can only help. The time has come to do so.

England win by nine wickets

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trent Bridge, day three: WI 61-6

Today was almost the West Indies’ day. They just needed to get through the final session without collapsing to not only have won the day but to actually have a chance to be on top in the match. That did not happen.

Yesterday I wrote that the West Indies would have to bowl much better today than they did yesterday to stay in the match and that is exactly what they did. Rampaul got some swing with the old ball to remove KP (not even through a bad shot, just an excellent delivery) and Roach finally found a spell where he stayed behind the line and got both Bell and Baristow with the second new ball. It was a fantastic spell of bowling and it really put England on the back foot, a position from which they never fully recovered.

Jonny Baristow looked very uncomfortable against the short delivery in his short stay at the crease. Opinion seemed to be divided over whether it constituted a weakness of not, but I am not inclined to think it does. Certainly he looked surprised by it and certainly he did not play it well, but it was part of a vicious new ball burst by Kemar Roach. There are few batsmen who would have played that very well and fewer still in their second Test. I think it is too early to pass a judgement on him.

I said that Kemar Roach found a spell of keeping his foot behind the line and that is true, but that period passed and we had more instances of the umpires ‘missing’ no-balls. We frequently saw them walk over to the crease to scrape away a bit and we saw on TV that the bowlers were overstepping, but it was only called a few times. This is a situation that should be rectified and could easily be. The on-field umpires have a radio connection to the third umpire; we know that the latter sees the no-balls, why can he not simply alert the former in real time? This would not even add any time to the game. All that has to happen is the third umpire radios down as it happens and the on-field umpire calls and signals such immediately thereafter. No need for analysis, discussion or anything of that sort; it would be just as quick and clear as if the on-field umpire had seen it. It would also free up the on-field umpire to focus on any potential incidents with the delivery.

I suggested yesterday that Tim Bresnan may have sneaked back into the side by picking up the tail-end wickets. That performance is probably irrelevant now, if he does not play at Edgbaston it will only be because of a rotation policy. He showed that he still can score runs and actually looked like he was trying to grind out an innings. At one point he had scored 20 runs off over 60 deliveries. It worked too; he finished with a very good 39 not out. What sealed it, however, was the three wickets he took during the West Indies collapse. England will certainly be happy to have a fully firing Tim Bresnan back, but I actually still think that Steve Finn ought to get a Test at some point. Bresnan’s runs in the first innings only compensated for some of the ones that he conceded on the first day and there is no reason why Finn could not have taken wickets too. The ball was starting to keep low by the time he took his wickets and it really suited the way he was bowling. That may happen again, but this has not been a typical English wicket and I still strongly feel that England must give Steven Finn a chance to show what he can do at some point. Bresnan was very good today, but we cannot just ignore what happened over the first six days of the series. One swallow does not a summer make.

My preference is still to play five bowlers. Bresnan scored runs again today and did so conventionally. The above paragraph should not be taken as a slight on him, he is a good cricketer and would easily be in any other side. It’s just that the same is true of Finn and ideally they would both play. This will probably not happen in the near future, but it would solve a lot of our selection problems.

I’m hesitant to say what might happen tomorrow. The West Indies have swung wildly from being very competitive and showing real talent to the 61-6 we saw in the evening session today. Samuels and Sammy are the two not out batsmen and they really need to put on another 200 partnership or the West Indies have just about had it. Frankly, they may have anyway. The pitch is breaking up, but not so much that one would say that England could not chase almost anything up to 250. The West Indies currently only lead by three. I expect a bit of fight, but I expect them to last to lunch and I would be surprised if they set England more than 100 to win. They’ve been surprising so far, however, they could surprise again.

Trent Bridge, day two: Eng 259-2

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

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

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

Trent Bridge, day one: WI 304-6

Strictly speaking one would probably say that England overall played better today than they did in the last match. But sat here after watching the last session it is hard to believe.

England selected an unchanged XI from the last Test and whilst I can understand the logic of not changing a winning side and whilst I know that Bresnan bowled well here last year it was a mistake. Bresnan was poor in the last Test, contributing little with the ball and nothing with the bat. With two perfectly good bowlers waiting in the wings, Strauss and Flower decided to give him another chance. He did bowl better when the ball was relatively new; his pace seemed to be up and he was troubling the batsmen. But the lack of variation in the attack caused by not having Finn showed. Bresnan lost his edge as the ball got old and was entirely ineffective thereafter. This is not to say the West Indies did not bat well, they certainly did. Marlon Samuels was very patient throughout his innings and was not troubled by the loss of Chanderpaul or Ramdin. Darren Sammy finally decided to bat sensibly instead of throwing his bat at everything and was rewarded with his highest ever Test score and still at a good rate. He struck the perfect balance of being positive without being reckless.

Bresnan, supposed to get wickets at the best of times and contain at the worst could do neither after the ball got old. It is true that the pitch was flat, but he was doing little better than Trott. It was simply all too easy for the West Indies; at tea they were 154-6, by the time the new ball was taken 23 overs later they were 260-6. Not only did England throw away a good position with toothless bowling in that time, they made it difficult for themselves with the new ball as the batsmen were very well set by the time it was taken. Sammy had some luck against Jimmy Anderson, but it was not a case of the West Indies clinging on either.

It is impossible to say whether this would have been better with Finn, but it is very unlikely that it could have been any worse. Finn was dropped from the Test team in the first place because he was too expensive, but today Bresnan went at almost four an over including the tighter spells he bowled before tea. In any case, Finn has improved his bowling since the last time he was in the side and there is every reason to suspect he might be a bit tighter now. Even if not, however, he has always had a knack for taking wickets and that is what England need. The pitch was flat, but fairly quick. Finn’s height gives him awkward bounce and the West Indians were already having trouble when Anderson or Broad bowled it short. There is no way adding that sort of variation could have made things worse for England than they turned out to be and a very good argument for why it might have been better. This selection error must be rectified at Edgbaston.

England are not in a poor position by any means. They did enough with the first new ball (helped by some injudicious strokeplay and poor footwork from the West Indies top order) that even their horror show of an evening session has only put the match back to about level terms. The plan will no doubt be to regroup overnight and attack the West Indies with a still fairly new ball tomorrow morning when they have to reset themselves. It may or may not work, but if it does and the West Indies fail to get 350 then England can still be pleased. The pitch has been described as one where 400 is a par score so England need not yet worry about the overall match situation, especially with a 1-0 lead in the series. Strauss and Flower absolutely must heed the lessons of this evening session, however, and England must play better tomorrow to seize an advantage.