England injury concerns

Another England fast bowler has gone down with a mild injury as Stuart Broad bowled only ten overs in England’s warmup match before bruising a heel. He was actually expected to miss the last warmup anyway and this means that if he is fit for the first Test he will go in having hardly bowled a ball in a competitive match. Steven Finn is also still a doubt for both the last warmup and the first Test and he looks less likely to be fit then Broad, so England will at best be going into the first Test with only one member of their pace attack both fit and prepared. England do at least have strong reserves; Tim Bresnan is no stranger to the Test side and has already made a strong case to replace Finn.

If Broad misses the first Test then it will be down to one of Graham Onions, Stuart Meaker or possibly Monty Panesar to replace him. Panesar is the least likely as Samit Patel will already be playing (and actually took three wickets against Mumbai A), but despite the extra spinner probably not being the best balance in India England should pick whoever is most likely to take wickets. In general this won’t be an extra spinner, but with two of the top three pace bowlers out that may cease to be the case. Certainly I think they should all play in the final warmup along with Bresnan. I expect Jimmy Anderson will miss out as he played in the first two matches and Patel might rest as well to allow Graeme Swann another match.

That would make for something of a bowler-heavy XI, but with Nick Compton’s unbeaten fifty in the second innings against Mumbai A they should not now have any more questions to answer with respect to the batting. I see no reason why the top six should not be Cook, Compton, Trott, Pietersen, Bell and Patel unless someone picks up an injury in the final warmup. England, and Flower specifically, like to play to win in the warmups and that is a good thing. But in this case with question marks still hovering over the bowling I think it is a better idea to make sure that all of the possible replacements have a match worth of bowling ahead of the first Test and to fully assess who should play in case Broad turns out not to be fit.

What I suspect is more likely is that Patel will play and Panesar won’t and that England will try to play an XI as close as possible to the one who will play in the first Test with Meaker for Broad being the only difference. I think that Onions will be the one to come into the side if Broad is not fit, but that England will simply take that for granted rather than try to give him another match.

Second warmup selection

England started their second warmup match, this one against Mumbai A, early this morning/late last night. Most of the regulars sat out this time, but there were a pair of battles of note. Joe Root and Nick Compton went head-to-head at the top of the order as they each vied for the now-vacant spot alongside Alastair Cook and Jonny Bairstow and Eoin Morgan both batted in the middle order as they looked to get the nod to replace Ian Bell when he returns to England for the birth of his child. Graham Onions also played, but Tim Bresnan did not which suggests that Bresnan already has the last bowling place.

There have been some oddities in the selection for this match, chief amongst them Alastair Cook sitting out. I can understand this from the standpoint of wanting all the players to get a match at some point and wanting the likely Test team, or most of it, to play in the final warmup. This means that Root, Compton, Morgan and Baristow all have to play in this match which in turn means that some of the regulars have to sit out and it is better that the centurion does so then someone like Ian Bell who made only five in the first warmup. But at the same time Cook is a new captain and it is important that he stamp his authority on the side. I think it is a bit early for him to be sitting out matches, even if there is a good reason. I would rather see him getting used to his new charges and possibly more importantly making sure that they are used to him. There is also the fact that Broad sat out the first warmup and will likely sit out the last one as well since England will want Stuart Meaker to get a game after being drafted late into the squad as cover for Steven Finn. This means that Cook will not have a single warmup match with his vice-captain before the first Test. This is not a disaster, certainly, but it hardly seems ideal either.

As far as actual selection issues, we have learnt a bit from the first day. Compton failed again, making only one, but Root did not really make the most of this as he fell for only 28. By all accounts Root did look the more settled and composed, but given that he started out as the second favourite he probably needed a big score to put him in front of Compton. England batted first this time, so they each should get another chance in the second innings as well. Bairstow made a century to advance his claims for the reserve middle order spot, but Morgan made 76 as well so it is not fully settled yet. That said, unlike Compton and Root there is previous Test history to consider with Morgan and Bairstow and that also favours Bairstow. Morgan really should not have even been on the plane. The selectors have been inexplicably favourable to Morgan, but Bairstow should have done enough today to secure the spot as Bell’s deputy. Tomorrow/tonight we should see England bowl and see if Onions and Monty Panesar can put any doubts in the selectors’ minds about Bresnan, as well as just how bad an idea it was to let Broad be vice-captain.

England’s selection a bit clearer

I’ve said a few times before that I don’t think England are well advised to select bits-and-pieces players just for a special occasion like India and that therefore Samit Patel should not play. I stand by the first part, but Patel has furnished solid evidence in the first warmup that he could be able to hold his own in the side as a batsman and if he can do that then there is no reason he should not play. He scored 104 in England’s first and only innings and came in when England were under a bit of pressure. Only Alastair Cook made a higher score. I would not say that this guarantees him a place; we still have yet to see what Jonny Bairstow can do and it is a bit harsh to drop him after the excellent innings he played at Lord’s. But Patel made his century against a fairly strong attack and certainly a stronger one than Bairstow will face when he gets a chance. I think Bairstow will have to be very convincing to force a place from here and given the selectors’ clear preference to having someone who can bowl a bit it may already be an impossible task.

The warmup match also clarified the bowling selection, albeit in an unfortunate way. Steven Finn started as the favourite for the final bowling position, but he picked up a thigh injury early on and missed the rest of the match. He is not a doubt for the tour as a whole, but there is little chance of his playing the first Test unless he can guarantee to Flower and Cook that he is one hundred per cent fit and I doubt that will happen. With Patel looking very likely to play that also reduces the chance that England will try to give Monty Panesar a game as a second spinner, meaning that the last bowling place appears to be down to Tim Bresnan and Graham Onions. Bresnan is certainly the initial favourite, as evidenced by the fact that he was chosen ahead of Onions to play in this match in the first place. He also took 3-59 and scored 33 not out to put Onions in a very similar position as Bairstow with two warmups remaining.

The only selection issue that was opened up more was that of Cook’s new opening partner. Nick Compton was given the first crack at the role, but lasted just three balls and failed to score. Unfortunately for him, since India A batted first he did not get a second chance in the match. He likely will in at least one of the remaining warmups, but Joe Root will also get a shot to prove that he is the best option instead. Compton is still probably the favourite until Root makes a strong case otherwise, but I actually would not be surprised to see Cook sit out one of the next two warmups and have Compton and Root go head-to-head.

There was other bad news for England as well. They did manage to put up a good score overall, but five of their wickets fell to the part time spin of Yuvraj Singh. Singh is rather better than Kevin Pietersen’s memorable assessment of him as a ‘pie-chucker’, but it is still a touch worrying that England still pick out the spinner to whom to give their wickets. The good news at least for England was of Singh’s five wickets one was a tailender, one had a century and one had fifty. The dismissals of Pietersen and Ian Bell are both issues that will need to be addressed, but it is at least not as panic inducing as a proper collapse.

First match of the tour

England’s first warmup of the tour of India starts tonight (for me, in the early hours of the morning for those in the UK). A warmup match is not indicative of how the series as a whole will go, of course, one can just look at the start of England’s tour of the UAE last January. But with all the upheaval in the England team lately this first warmup still has a lot of interesting aspects and will also start to answer some questions about team selection.

As has been kicked about some in the press, England will not be facing a specialist spinner. But the India A side they face is overall a quite strong one and I am actually more interested to see how the bowlers fare. Especially of interest is how effective or otherwise Samit Patel looks. He seems to be the incumbent as a fifth bowler/sixth batsman, but as I’ve said before I don’t particularly rate him as either and I don’t think he should play unless he can so one or the other well. If England are dead set in playing a second spinner (though as I’ve said already, they shouldn’t be) then Patel should need to outperform Monty Panesar to fill that role, regardless of his batting. I would actually prefer to compare him to Graham Onions and Tim Bresnan, however. Of course there are three warmups and we don’t yet know who will play in this first one, but I expect we will start to get some indication.

With Kevin Pietersen having returned to the England squad we might also start to get a look at how well his reintegration is going. Most of the players have made positive statements to the press, but that is to be expected and it will be interesting to see if there is any telling body language. Pietersen himself could also do with some runs just to make a point upon his return. I doubt much if anything will be said if he gets a duck, and certainly it shouldn’t, but all the same a solid score will be of use to underline his return.

And we will also get to see in these first warmups how Alastair Cook fares on the field as captain in a red ball format. He has captained before, of course, when Strauss was rested from the tour of Bangladesh in early 2010, but since then Cook has taken the ODI captaincy and had more time in the Test vice-captaincy. This is also a ‘fresh start’, unlike temporarily taking the reins in Bangladesh so I am eager to see what attitude and tactics he will bring to the captaincy long-term.

What can be done about India?

Yesterday it was revealed that not only were Sky making plans to cover the India v England Test series from home, the BBC had also been asked to pay an extra fee to get into the ground and now they might not cover the series at all.

Although it is good that neither Sky nor the BBC are giving in and that no one in England will be stuck with the ESPN STAR Sports commentary, not having TMS would be a tragedy. It is also a breathtakingly petty and spiteful move by the BCCI and their attitude makes one’s blood boil. It almost goes without saying now that the next time India tour England the ECB should treat the Indian broadcasters the same way or better yet, just refuse to let them in the ground full stop. This is in essence what the BCCI are doing already. I would love to see the ECB properly stand up to them and engage in a bit of tit-for-tat: sell them the rights, but then claim that the rights did not actually include entrance to the ground and close the door on them.

But this is just the latest in a much broader pattern of behaviour from the BCCI. It’s most notable in their stubborn and irrational refusal to allow the DRS to be adopted and in their imposition of their T20 schedule (both the IPL and ‘Champions’ League) on the rest of the world. The problem is not, or at least not primarily, that the BCCI have too much power. They do, but with the current structure of world cricket and the ICC it is almost inevitable that someone will have a disproportionate amount of power and influence. Right now it’s India. But the problem is that the BCCI use that power not only to secure their own interests, but to actively impose themselves on all other nations. There is no excuse whatsoever for their current behaviour with the broadcasting rights; it is simply a transparent attempt to use dodgy means to dictate terms to England.

The ECB, Sky and the BBC are not just rolling over and accepting this, which is good. As mentioned above, Sky and the BBC both refused to pay the exorbitant fees the BCCI demanded and the ECB have pulled the counties from the farcical ‘Champions’ League. But all are small matters to the BCCI and whilst they are all heartening they will have no long-term effect. Indeed, shutting the English broadcasters out of the grounds may be seen as a desirable outcome for the BCCI. The ECB need to then think more deeply about how to check the BCCI’s impositions. Obviously this is easier said than done and there is every chance that there is already discussion on this matter. The financial stakes are still much higher for England and the rest of the world than they are for India, but with India steadily becoming more dismissive of Test cricket that may start to change.

Until a better option comes along it looks like England, ideally in collaboration with the other established nations and particularly Australia, will have to simply continue to engage in tit-for-tat. And, of course, inflicting as many 0-4 series on India as possible!

England’s mystery spin problem?

ESPN Cricinfo today published the results of an ‘investigation’ revealing that England use different methods to test the legality of bowling actions than the ICC. The report suggested that this was holding back the development of England’s own ‘mystery’ spinner and that contributed to England’s struggles in the subcontinent over the winter. But that’s a bit of an exaggeration and I think that England are well advised to keep strict restrictions on bowling actions.

The main problem with the suggestion that England cannot play mystery spin because there are no county mystery spinners is that England’s problem is actually not mystery spin, it’s just spin. England badly struggled in the UAE against Saeed Ajmal with many of the batsmen struggling to pick him. But there are two things to remember: the first is that most teams have struggled against Ajmal; he was the lead wicket taker in the 2011 calendar year. The second is that England’s problems are in no way limited to just the ‘mystery’ spin of Ajmal. England also struggled badly against Abdur Rehman in the Pakistan series (19 wickets at 16.73) and then against Rangana Herath in Sri Lanka (19 wickets at 17.94). Both are slow left arm spinners and although Herath did once have a ‘mystery’ delivery it was conventional turn that did for England in Sri Lanka. In fact, the most recent ‘mystery’ spinner England played was the much hyped Sunil Narine who was immediately picked and got hit around the park. He did not even manage to fool Steven Finn. Clearly England’s problem is not then related to ‘mystery’ is is just related to spin and mystery or not they have a problem with it in the subcontinent and little trouble elsewhere.

It is also not true to suggest that England would be better off developing a mystery spinner of their own. Graeme Swann has shown how successful a true off-spinner can be and Ajantha Mendis has shown that simply having variations is not enough to be successful. It is quite right that England have not altered their testing methods to encourage the development of mystery spinners for the sake thereof; there is very little if anything to be gained and it’s certainly not worth compromising what are very good standards set by England. The relaxation of the international standards ought only ever to have applied to bowlers like Murali who physically cannot straighten their elbows; applying it to everyone makes the regulation needlessly complex and difficult to apply. I would be very uneasy if England were to field a bowler with a questionable action and questionable delivery and would also prefer that the international regulations were returned to their original state. In the meantime England should continue to strictly apply their testing methods and standards.

How many spinners do England need in India?

Any time a team tours India, or anywhere in the subcontinent, there is a the question of the balance of the side and whether or not a second spinner is needed. Generally speaking, the answer at which is arrived is ‘yes’ with the reasoning being that in the conditions so favourable to spin the usual attack must be tweaked. There is very little actually wrong with this reasoning and there are many benefits to playing two spinners. They can bowl more overs in the heat of India, they can work in tandem and they can balance attack and defence generally better than the seamers when the conditions get unhelpful.

But with England not having won in India since 1984/85, it is perhaps worth casting a critical eye over that policy. Since 1970 England have only had four spinners take ten wickets or more in India compared to ten pacemen. Seam bowlers have also taken 267 wickets in total compared to only 164 by spinners. Of course, that stat will generally favour the pacemen as there are simply more of them. But what is interesting is to look at the individual performers. Only Derek Underwood has really found success in India as a spinner. And he did fare very well, taking 54 wickets in 16 matches at an average of 26.51. But there are actually seven pace bowlers with a better average than that in India and five of them have a better wickets-to-match ratio as well. Overall, English spinners in India (since 1970) average seven runs per wicket more than their pace colleagues.

All of which is interesting and does damage the notion that spinners are necessarily a huge asset in India. But what does it mean for England’s selection on this tour? I definitely would not say it argues sternly that England must not play two spinners, but I do think it means they should not go in with a plan of playing two spinners. What they need to asses is whether Panesar/Patel are going to be better than their pace colleagues in the conditions and knowing that English spinners have a history of being less effective than pace bowlers in the subcontinent. It should not be a hard decision with respect to Patel; I cannot see him being a better choice than any of the pace bowlers. Monty is more interesting and it may come down to how many bowlers England want to play. If they stick with a four man attack then I think Steven Finn has to be selected over Panesar. But if it is a five-man attack then the question of Bresnan, Onions or Panesar is a much closer one and may be down to warmup performances.

New LVCC format

The ECB also announced today the revised format for County cricket from 2014 onward. It is actually a very good revision; sanity prevailed and the ECB scrapped the notion of a 14-match schedule and they have also got rid of the T20 block and changed the CB40 to the CB50 and added quarter-finals.

The most important decision was about the LV=CC and the ECB not only kept the current form intact, but they also set the schedule so that the first 14 matches start on Sunday. The ECB press release did not say why only the first 14 rounds (though my guess is that it’s because the T20 competition will be over after that) or on what day they will start in September instead. It’s a nice arrangement though. There will still be weekend cricket and there will be a regular schedule to go with it.

The CB40 is not only to become the CB50, it will also have rules exactly matching those of international cricket. Although I do prefer the forty over version as a fan, from the standpoint of the well-being of English cricket I think this is an overall good thing. Also good is that there will be a quarter-final round this year which has very much been lacking in the past. There will be eight group matches per side, so my guess is that Scotland and Holland will continue playing and there will be four groups of five.

The T20 competition is possibly the oddest one. Getting rid of the T20 block was a great idea for the spectators wanting to attend and it does not break up the LV=CC scheduling anymore which is a distinct improvment. It will be 14 matches though, which is too many (I thought the ten of this year worked very well) and I don’t know how that will work as far as the groups go. I suspect it will mean an unbalanced schedule of the type that was proposed for the LV=CC, but that would be flawed for the same reasons.

I’m quite happy with the revisions overall and I think they will make for an improved fixture list from 2014 onwards.

One more month

As of today it is exactly one month until England play the first Test against India in Ahmedabad. Of course, really it is a bit less than one month because I’m writing this late in the day on the 15th and the time difference means that the match will be starting about 16 hours before this on the 15th of next month. (It will actually be the 14th for me.) But never mind that. I am, of course, greatly looking forward to it. Although England have not had a good year in Test cricket so far, India are far from their peak and England are very much in with a shout. But there are a few things to be settled over the next month.

The first is the Pietersen matter. He is now being reintegrated into the team and although it seems likely that he will be added to the touring squad (likely as a 17th member rather than displace one of the current 16) it is not guaranteed. I can see the logic behind this; Flower wants to have Pietersen back in the side, but will rightly not compromise the reintegration process if it is not completed in time for the Test series. But I think it would be better for the team if the matter could finally be put to rest. As I have stated before, Pietersen is of very limited utility in the subcontinent and England lose very little by not having him. I would therefore lean toward leaving him out. But if he is not to be left out then he should be added to the squad as soon as possible. The uncertainty about Pietersen is not yet a problem, but the longer it is left the more it damages the pre-tour plans.

A less important matter is that of Cook’s vice-captain. Stuart Broad seems to be the next in line, being the T20 captain, but he has yet to demonstrate any qualities that suit him even to that role, let alone the vice-captaincy in Tests. In fact, it is almost hard to think of a player less suited to the role than Broad. Much better candidates for the role would be Graeme Swann, Ian Bell and Matt Prior. Swann is possibly the first choice as he did a good job as T20 captain when Broad was injured, though I might just prefer Bell. In general I prefer to have a batsman captain as it rules out ego playing a role in bowling changes and fielding reviews. Matt Prior is another possibility, but his habit of considering every single appeal to be out is problematic. I would go with Bell in the end, but it is something at which Flower will probably have to look. Of course, England might go back to the practice of a few years ago and not have an official vice-captain at all. But a deputy would still have to be nominated if and when Cook goes off the field.

The other matters to be sorted are the more commonplace ones of team selection. Specifically Cook’s new opening partner is yet to be determined and neither is the final balance of the side. These are probably both matter which will be settled during the warmups however. Right now I’d have Root open and play three seamers and two proper spinners, but I might change my mind based on performances in the warmup matches.

Of course, all those matters take a slight backseat to trying to find a way to keep the batsmen from losing their heads whenever a spinner comes on.

T20 World Cup Group 1 permutations

After the first two sets of matches in Group 1 of the Super Eights all four teams still have a chance to advance and all four teams still could fail to advance, though in Sri Lanka’s case that would be unlikely. The last round of matches sees the West Indies face New Zealand and England face hosts Sri Lanka. For Sri Lanka, almost any result is enough. A win will guarantee that they will top the group and even if they lose they can still advance if the West Indies fail to hammer New Zealand. If England win they will probably be in the semi-finals and might even top the group if they win by enough. A defeat will not necessarily eliminate England, however. It will depend on the result of the other match. The West Indies can can not ensure a place in the semi-finals even if they beat New Zealand, but they can put some pressure on the other teams to get a result. But they are out if they lose, as are New Zealand. The Kiwis are in the most dire position, needing both to win and get some help from elsewhere.

It gets interesting in the specifics though. Whilst a Sri Lanka victory and a West Indies victory is simple enough (they both advance), if England and the West Indies both win then they and Sri Lanka will all be on four points at the top of the table and the group winner and runner-up will be decided on Net Run Rate. Sri Lanka have a comfortable lead right now, but a loss to England will obviously eat into that. England can realistically top the group if they win by a decent amount and in theory the West Indies can as well, though it will take an incredible win.

For England to top the group they have to beat Sri Lanka and hope that the West Indies don’t win by enough to top their NRR (which would be unlikely). The first situation is the most straightforward, Sri Lanka’s NRR right now is: $\frac{304}{35.2} - \frac{303}{40} = 1.029$ and England’s is $\frac{313}{38.5} - \frac{327}{40} = -0.115$ . (NB: The decimal values for overs are not ‘true’ decimals, but the usual cricket notation for fragments of an over. That is: ‘38.5’ = ’38 + 5/6′.) Unfortunately, the way NRR is set up means that it can’t be said that England need to win by x runs or with y balls to spare; the required margin of victory will actually vary with the first innings score. If England bat first and score x and Sri Lanka then score y the equation (and I’ve set it up as an equation instead of an inequality because England technically only need to draw level; the next tiebreak is head-to-head result) for England to overtake Sri Lanka is $\frac{313+x}{58.5} - \frac{327+y}{60} = \frac{304+y}{55.2} - \frac{303+x}{60}$ (bearing in mind that the sides are considered to have used their full overs even when bowled out and that England are assumed to win since otherwise the analysis is irrelevant). This solves out to a linear equation that gives Sri Lanka’s maximum score, y, for a variety of English scores, x: $y=0.969x - 16.5$ . This works out to a 20-25 run margin for likely scores.

It gets a little bit more complicated if Sri Lanka bat first though. Then it becomes a question of England needing to knock the runs off in a certain number of overs. If Sri Lanka score x then the overs, y England have in which to get the total is given as: $\frac{313+x+1}{38.5+y} - \frac{327+x}{60} = \frac{304+x}{55.2} - \frac{303+x+1}{40+y}$ which works out to: $y=\frac{28.8(\sqrt{x^2+618x+95500}-0.369(x+331))}{x+315}$ . (As much as I’d like to say I worked that out by hand, it would not be true.) This is a more complicated graph, but it actually has a happier result. It is quite flat for reasonable run totals and the quantised nature of the run chase gives us a handy result: for any Sri Lankan score between 101 and 205 (inclusive), England will have 17.2 overs in which to chase it if they wish to better Sri Lanka’s NRR. There is the caveat though that if it is close then England could hit a boundary for the winning runs and possibly get over the line with an extra ball used. For totals of 100 or fewer England will have 17.1 overs and for totals of 206 or greater England will have 17.3 overs, but in the first instance it isn’t likely that Sri Lanka will score so few and in the second instance it isn’t likely that England will chase that many even in twenty overs.

That’s for England and Sri Lanka and England are safe if they can get above Sri Lanka. But the the West Indies are still in the mix with a win. The easiest scenario for them is that they win and England lose. That will guarantee them the runners-up position. They can also finish second if England win narrowly, though and if England manage to drag Sri Lanka’s NRR down far enough the West Indies could even top the group. The problem for the West Indies is that right now their NRR is very low. It’s well behind Sri Lanka and pretty far even behind England. Even if England win by only a very small amount and only increase their NRR by a small amount, the West Indies will need to win pretty comfortably to catch them. The other possibility for them is that England hammer Sri Lanka and bring Sri Lanka’s NRR within range, but that will likely require another comfortable victory for the West Indies. They also have the slight problem of playing first, so they will not know what they need. Getting their NRR back to parity would be a good way to make England (and Sri Lanka to a lesser extent) sweat a bit though. To do that they would need to win by about twenty runs $\frac{308+x}{60} - \frac{294+y}{55.2}=0 \Rightarrow y=0.928x-8.24$ or with about two and a half overs to go $\frac{308+x+1}{40+y}-\frac{294+x}{55.2}=0 \Rightarrow y=\frac{15.7(x+347)}{x+294}$ . It certainly can be done, though it won’t guarantee anything. They’d need a much more convincing win to have a chance to top the group though. Either England or Sri Lanka will have a NRR well into the positive range and for the West Indies to get their NRR that high would be a massive effort.

What they will be hoping above all is that England lose. And If the West Indies win and England lose then the West Indies will finish as runners-up. If the West Indies lose, however, they are out even if England also lose. They would actually be level on points with England and New Zealand, but their NRR is already worse than New Zealand and would of course go down even farther. This is actually New Zealand’s only chance of going to the semi-finals. Right now their NRR is only a little bit worse than England’s and there is every chance that a win could send them above England or even close enough that a subsequent English loss would send their NRR under that of the Kiwis. Like with the case of the West Indies it is hard to calculate what they need as they don’t have a clear target, but the closest thing is probably England’s current NRR (although England can actually raise it with a loss if the loss is in a super over). Still, for New Zealand to go past England on NRR would put a lot of pressure on England and the equations to do that are (defending): $\frac{322+x}{60} - \frac{323+y}{58.5}=-0.114 \Rightarrow y=0.981x-6.59$ and chasing: $\frac{322+x+1}{40+y} - \frac{323+x}{58.5}=-0.114 \Rightarrow y=\frac{18.83(x+324.4)}{x+322.3}$ . They could do this relatively easily by winning by about ten or eleven runs or by chasing a target in 18.5 overs. Their chances should certainly not be written off.

Summary
Sri Lanka can get through and top the group with even a reasonably close loss. If they get within 20-25 runs of England in a chase or make England take more than 17.2 overs to chase down a target they will very likely win the group. They could theoretically be knocked out if England pass them and the West Indies beat New Zealand by enough to pass them both, but the odds are against it.

England can top the group by beating Sri Lanka by more than 25 runs or chasing down Sri Lanka’s target in 17.2 overs or quicker. A win of any type will probably be enough to advance though the Windies could knock them out with a comfortable win over New Zealand. They can advance with a loss if New Zealand win, but very narrowly.

The West Indies can advance if they win and England lose. They can also advance if they beat New Zealand by about 25 runs/three overs and England win fairly narrowly. If they thrash the Kiwis they will have a chance to even top the group, but it is very unlikely.

New Zealand can advance if they beat the West Indies comfortably and England then lose. But anything else will send the Kiwis out.