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.

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.

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.

India finally win one

And win quite comfortably, in fact. It’s the first time they have beaten England since the first test of the 2008 series, way back in the KP/Moores era. It’s the first time they’ve beaten anyone since beating the West Indies before the England tour.

I think, however, that England played poorly more than India played well. England’s bowling and fielding were sloppy throughout the innings. They bowled eighteen wides and had a fair number of overthrows and misfields. Despite this, when Kohli was caught in the 29th over it made the score only 123-4. For almost thirty overs England kept India under five runs an over, but when Raina came to the crease and India took the batting powerplay England’s defiance slipped away like a shady character in a film. England haemorrhaged 174 runs in the last twenty overs of the match and went from being in a strong position to needing 301 to win. Dhoni got Man of the Match for his 87 not out off 70 balls, but I thought Raina’s innings may have been more important. Raina came in with India under a lot of pressure and responded by scoring 61 off 55. By the time he holed out the floodgates were open and Dhoni could play with the sort of abandon we saw him employ so well after top order collapses during the test series.

As bad as England’s collapse with the ball was, the collapse with the bat was almost worse. England lost Kieswetter and Pietersen in the powerplay, (for 7 and 19 respectively) but still came out a reasonable 48-2. With Cook and Trott at the crease they had the men they needed to set a platform and set about doing so. Cook brought up a run a ball fifty, whilst Trott played more circumspectly (as he is wont to do). England had recovered to 111-2 when Cook suffered a rush of blood and holed out against the spinner Jadeja for 60 off 63. Two overs later Trott tried an ugly sweep off the same bowler and was bowled. This left England in almost the same position in which India had been at 120-4 in the 25th over. Unlike India, the subsequent attempt to counterattack and loosen the shackles just resulted in Bopara and Bairstow departing in successive overs (a total of four wickets in five overs). Both went to fairly careless shots, attempting to drive a spinner, mistiming it and presenting a simple return chance. The tail never really stood a chance of rescuing England, though only Swann lost his wicket in a manner that could not be described as ‘brainless’. England were bowled out for 174 with eight of their batsmen giving their wickets away.

The only consolation for England is that we know they can play better, and it reasonable to think that in the next match they will. If they had played better today they would have had a good chance of winning and it certainly would have been close. Unfortunately for England, now India have their confidence properly restored and will likely play better themselves. I think it will be a better series from here, but I also think that England may have blown any chance they had of winning it.

Please don’t wake me

India v England round two: ‘This time there’s curry’ starts later this week. Specifically it starts at 04.00 CDT on Friday. Which is quite early, especially for a completely pointless series. It isn’t even a proper ’round two’, it’s only an ODI/T20 series. The real round two will be in a year’s time, when England go back for a four test series. England aren’t playing the tests now because… well… I’m sure there’s some reason. Anyway it’s an ODI series in India, which means that England won’t win. Douglas Adams explained why in Life, the Universe and Everything: ‘They care, we don’t. They win.’ And history supports this; England haven’t won an ODI against India in India since the sixth ODI of the 2006 tour, which was a dead rubber. England lost that series 5-1 (with one match rained off) and lost the next ODI tour 5-0 (with two matches cancelled after the Mumbai terror attack). To be fair to England, they have improved considerably since those tours, albeit more in test matches than in limited overs ones.

I was tempted to suggest that the most recent match in India (in the World Cup) was the best barometer. This may be the case, but that match featured a 120 off 115 balls from Sachin Tendulkar, 5-48 from Tim Bresnan, 158 off 145 balls from Andrew Strauss and a brilliant spell from Zaheer Khan in which he took three wickets for one run in six balls. Of those four players, however, Khan and Tendulkar are injured and Strauss has retired. India have sustained numerous injuries since the World Cup, whilst retirements and a youth movement have rendered England almost unrecognisable from the team that performed so mercurially during the World Cup.

England will have the momentum coming off their home ODI wins, but I don’t think this is worth much, if anything. (In the last Ashes England had the momentum going into the Perth test, which they lost heavily. Subsequently Australia had the momentum going into the Melbourne test and were bowled out for 98 on the first day.) What may have more an effect is India’s desire for revenge. TMS’s Adam Mountford says India are billing this series as ‘The Payback Series’. (They don’t seem to be short of confidence.) England should do better in this series than in ODI series past (they could hardly do worse, mind), but I don’t know that they’ll win it. England have a lot of inexperienced players, and I doubt they’ll do much better in the unfamiliar Indian conditions than the Indians did in the unfamiliar English conditions over the summer. (Though Bairstow and Borthwick didn’t seem troubled in the last warm up match.)

It is an odd series in that it’s interesting on paper (England’s first trip to India since their revival under Strauss and Flower) without actually being interesting. It isn’t a test series, but there is one coming up in a year. We just played India anyway, so it doesn’t stir up any interest in that regard. Obviously the series is good for the ECB coffers (a good thing), but I think England (and probably India) would be better served by having a bit of a break. A win would allow England to rub India’s nose in the dirt a bit, but a loss would allow India to say that the series in England meant nothing, so England really have nothing to gain.

I’m not sure how much of the series I’ll listen to. As motivations to get out of bed before dawn a meaningless ODI does not rank in the top ten. And even upon successfully getting up it is hard to stay awake through the middle overs of an ODI on just three hours of sleep. (I know from experience.) I’ll see how I feel when the alarm goes off at 03.30 on Friday morning.

If it wasn’t for disappointment I wouldn’t have any appointments

It has not been a good 24 hours for England sport. Yesterday in Podgorica the England football team blew a 2-0 lead and drew 2-2 to Montenegro. Today the England rugby team played France in a world cup quarter final. Well I say ‘played’, but ‘stood like statues whilst the French ran riot’ might be a better description. On Twitter TMS scorer Malcolm Ashton suggested that France were playing a Madame Tussaud’s XV. Jonathan Agnew asked why ITV were showing an X-rated horror movie. England went into halftime trailing 0-16. They gave glimpses of a fightback in the second half, but just as in the group stages they were sloppy. They conceded fewer (far fewer) penalties, but these were offset by handling errors. I lost count of how many times England knocked the ball on in the French 22. (Though part of that was probably due to the fact that I switched from tea to brandy at halftime.) England did score a brace of tries to maintain interest, but it wasn’t enough. The full time result was England 12-19 France and not even the most partial of England supporters would say that it was unfair. In a way, this gives France the double over England, as the most recent football encounter was also a French victory, at Wembley last year. We need to try playing them at cricket.

So England’s RWC has ended in much the same manner as the cricket and football versions: Bitter knockout disappointment. The next knockout tournament is Euro 2012, followed by the World T20. I’d suggest maybe England have a chance at the latter, but as I type this England’s cricket side are 35-3 in a warmup match against Hyderabad. I’m going to bed.

Swing low sweet chariot

England v France kicks off in about fifteen minutes in Auckland. It’s the second Six Nations quarter final of the day (or night, depending on your location). The first match was a proper upset with Wales, who failed to beat South Africa in their group and always looked a little sketchy, beating an Irish side who had shocked the Wallabies to top their group. I didn’t see anyone who expected Wales to win, I certainly didn’t. But their defence was superb, twice early on Ireland got down to within a metre of a try, only for Wales to force them back and eventually force an error. The second time Ireland went a full fifteen metres backward before conceding a penalty. It was a very, very solid performance, capped by a brace of second half tries after Ireland had equalised. The full time result was a fair one: Ireland 10-22 Wales.

So the two old protagonists meet again. England and France, adversaries for the past thousand years give or take. England should win. England have a very good record in knockout matches against France and won at Twickenham during the Six Nation. France’s world cup has been abysmal. Poor play and a player rebellion was capped by a defeat to Tonga in their last group match. They had done enough to qualify anyway (and were never going to top a group containing New Zealand), but could hardly have gone into the quarter finals in a worse way.

Still, England have not been overwhelming. They won all their group matches, but needed a late try against Argentina and a very late try against Scotland. They played sloppily throughout the group stages. Not only did they concede a staggering number of penalties, they had a fair share of handling errors as well. Only against a depleted Romanian side did they look comfortable. They also had off pitch troubles most notably with regard to the balls provided to Wilko.

In the end, I do think England will win. They haven’t played well, but they have always managed to do just enough to win. (And no more.) France have not. Also, England are starting both Flood and Wilko which I think is a good idea. I think this will put the French defence off, as there will be more kicking opportunities, and will improve the distribution to the backs with more width.

We’ve already seen one upset today though. COME ON ENGLAND!

How sweet to be an idiot

FT Montenegro 2-2 England. England played brilliantly for half an hour to take a 2-0 lead, and then proceeded to play appallingly poorly for the next hour. The big headline, though, is that Wayne Rooney is still an idiot. Rooney got a straight red for getting frustrated and maliciously kicking a Montenegrin in the back of the leg. A spectacularly stupid bit of petulance, almost as bad as his crotch stomp against Portugal five years ago. It is only tempered by the fact that this time a draw was all England needed, instead of sending them out on penalties.

The result means that England are definitely in Euro 2012, but that Rooney will definitely miss at least the first match. I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing. Since the end of his purple patch in the 2010 WC qualifiers Rooney has picked up as many cards (2Y, 1R) as he has scored goals. Will he rediscover his form before next summer? Impossible to say, of course, but I am sceptical. He’s never really impressed in the summer, and his success in the WC qualifiers looked more like a Harmison-esque form of his life, as opposed to what we should expect on a consistent basis.His absence will give England at least one match (and I suspect two or three) to try out a new attacking strategy, hopefully one that’s more fluid that what we’ve seen with Rooney’s statuesque demeanour in the penalty area.

None of Rooney’s antics should take away from the fact that England played as poorly in the second half as I have ever seen them. They gave the ball away time and time again. As such, they could not create any sustained pressure and with Montenegro steadily increasing in confidence and desire (with Wales beating Switzerland) England may have been fortunate to have only conceded an equaliser. Coming on the back of the shaky 1-0 victory over Wales it means that England will be far from favourites when facing up to competent opposition in Poland next summer.