Tag: England

Lord’s, day four: England 16-2

Barring a miracle, today was the last day of England being number one in the world. As they have in most of the series, England had some very good spells with the ball. But they never got the kind of collapse they needed to keep the South Africans down to a reasonable total. Steven Finn was the best bowler for England and for the first time in the three Tests he has got this summer he really looked like fulfilling his potential. He bowled a hostile spell with the old ball in the morning and then coming on as first change with the second new ball in the afternoon he had a spell of 3-14 to give England an opening. It was an excellent demonstration of his value in a four man attack; neither Jimmy nor Broad were getting any appreciable swing and were looking innocuous. Finn, however, used his pace and height to good effect with the still hard ball. As useful as Bresnan is when he is on song, I think that variation in the attack is very important for England. Ideally both Bresnan and Finn would play, but since that does not seem likely I would go for Finn.

Finn gave England a bit of a chance; he gave them an opening. But he had to come off eventually and after tea South Africa regrouped with their tail again. JP Duminy and Vernon Philander built another frustrating partnership and by the time Philander gifted his wicket to Anderson it was already too late for England. It was the same sort of frustrating partnership that the two put on in the first innings. It wasn’t as long, but in the circumstances it was more important and although the Amla-De Villiers partnership was worth more I think there is a fair case to be made that if South Africa win it will be because of that eighth wicket partnership instead. It took the momentum and indeed the match away from England who were otherwise in with a chance.

That partnership took the game away from England, but where England all but lost it was in the 13 overs of batting before stumps. Three hundred and forty-six was always going to be a very tough ask and probably too much (it would have been a record for a Lord’s Test). But there was still some faint sense of hope that maybe, maybe on a flat wicket England could do something special. That hope lasted approximately four overs, in which time Philander (that man again) got both openers lbw. Strauss’s dismissal was particularly horrific. He completely misjudged the length of a ball and left one that hit him halfway up the pad. Michael Vaughan described it simply as the shot (lack thereof, more accurately) of a man who had too much on his plate this week and whose mind was just a bit scrambled. It definitely did seem as though the Pietersen issue had got to him. It was far less than he deserved in his hundredth Test. England were left needing another 330 to win with eight wickets in hand, but the simple expression does not do justice to how unlikely that really is. England only have ninety overs and so would have to not only bat better than they have all year, but do so quickly. There is little to no chance that tomorrow will be anything other than a formality.

Lord’s, day three: South Africa 145-3

It has been another absorbing day of Test cricket and once again it feels as though South Africa have just about had the better of it. It has been close enough, however, that they are still only on top by a bit. They might be a bit disappointed though as they did have a chance to take control of the match in a similar way as England did yesterday. It was not as good a chance and they did not miss it as utterly, but it was still there.

South Africa had that opening partly thanks to some generosity from England and in particular Matt Prior. After seeing off the eight overs to the new ball comfortably, Prior had a flash at the first delivery from the new ball which was well wide and edged it to slip. It was an absolutely terrible shot and was the sort that one expects to see Brad Haddin play. Jonny Bairstow also became the second England batsman to have been bowled through the gate by Morkel in gutting circumstances this Test as he fell short of his ton. But from 264-8 England still got a first innings lead as South Africa had the same sort of problem in dismissing the tail that hurt England. Graeme Swann played a very good, restrained, innings of 37 not out and was supported by double figure scores from both Anderson and Finn. Whilst a lead of six is not significant, it had looked like England would be facing a significant deficit and batted well to avoid that.

The most interesting part of the day was South Africa’s innings though. The pitch throughout the match has looked flat and for the first time South Africa would be batting with the sun out. They did make a fairly untroubled start, but England never really let them get away. I criticise Andrew Strauss’ field placings and bowling strategy a lot, but this is a time where it worked very well. England had to keep South Africa from getting away and let the odd good ball keep the pressure on and that is what they did. Strauss also made the excellent decision to bowl Swann as first change after it was clear that the seamers were not getting much out of the pitch. Swann bowled very well, especially after tea. He beat the bat of Smith more than once (and once so comprehensively that England for some reason decided to waste a review on it) and ultimately trapped him lbw. He also forced Amla to take an off stump guard to negate the possibility of an lbw. Although the bowlers never really looked on top of the batsmen they managed to winkle three batsmen out and kept it tight enough to keep England well in the match. The only real blot was Prior’s drop of Amla when the latter was on only two.

With two days left in the Test, there is very likely going to be a result. South Africa are on top at the moment with a lead of 139, but England have an opening and South Africa actually have a nightwatchman in after the late dismissal of Kallis. So far in this Test, neither attack has been able to instigate a collapse without some help either from the batsmen or from the umpire, so South Africa will basically need to keep batting sensibly. England aren’t letting them get away, but anything short of a proper collapse will probably be okay for South Africa if possibly not ideal. I don’t think England will want to chase too many on the last day and a bit; although it is a flat wicket, both sides barely got to 300 and there have been no centurions in the match. I think the pitch is a lot harder on which to bat than it looks and the way England bowled today suggests that there is the occasional bit of help in the pitch to keep the batsmen from getting very settled. It is also worth remembering that England were bowled out for 240 on a very flat pitch at the Oval. Whilst they don’t have Pietersen or Bopara to throw it away this time, it is still by no means certain that they will not succumb to pressure during the run chase. There have been a lot of suggestions that 300 is gettable for England and whilst it may be, I would not expect them to succeed. I think England will not be favourites in chasing anything over 275, which means the bowlers have a lot of work to do tomorrow.

Lord’s, day two: England 208-5

The first two days of this Test have had an odd symmetry about them. Both sides have suffered from dramatic top order collapses, and in fact both lost their fourth wicket on 54, before recovering to decent positions. South Africa are probably in the better position, however, as they have the security of knowing that their tail has wagged (whilst England are still only hoping that theirs do) and they are not the ones under pressure to win the match.

Part of that success from the tail was Vernon Philander scoring his maiden Test fifty this morning. He joint top-scored in the innings with 61 and frustrated England by building good partnerships with the other bowlers. South Africa’s last four batsmen, all pure bowlers, made 114 runs between them. England did not bowl too poorly this morning, but Anderson for once did not use the new ball terribly well. He kept banging it in short to the batsmen, but he did not control it well enough to make it really count. Broad was still down on pace, but was pitching the ball up and getting it to swing well and probably deserved more than just the one wicket that he got. England would not have been too disappointed with their efforts, 309 is hardly a formidable total. but the lopsided nature of the scorecard was quite disappointing.

As disappointing as South Africa’s resistance and England’s post-lunch collapse were, probably the most gutting aspect of the day for England supporters came on the stroke of lunch. Andrew Strauss got off to an excellent start with the bat in his hundredth Test, but was bowled through the gate on twenty and in the last over before lunch. It was Morne Morkel to get him yet again and with an excellent delivery. Going around the wicket, Morkel had got several balls to shape away from the left-handed Strauss and finally nipped one back in and through the gate to bowl the England captain. Whilst Strauss maybe should not have had that gate, there was not a lot he could have done. It was a fantastic piece of bowling and the demoralising effect possibly played a role in the collapse that came after the interval.

England have at least done a better job of recovering with their recognised batsmen than South Africa did, South Africa lost their fifth wicket on 105 and their sixth on 163, and will hope to leave less work for their tail. Jonny Bairstow was responsible for a lot of England’s recovery. He was dropped after a poor series against the West Indies in which it was decided that he had a weakness against the short ball, but three innings always seemed like an absurdly small sample size and he went about showing the folly of that judgement today. South Africa had clearly heard about his supposed weakness and gave him a steady diet of short stuff at the start of his innings. That’s not an easy thing to get through for anyone, regardless of any real or supposed weakness, but Bairstow did so well. He not only managed to fight through the difficult bit but also managed to score some runs as he did so and after tea the South Africans had clearly tired. Bairstow and Bell scored more fluently after the interval and put on over a hundred before Bell was out to a slightly loose drive off Philander. It came during a good over in which Philander had beat the bat twice and the wicket taking ball was a good one, but Bell looked as though he had got just a bit too relaxed and was maybe a bit careless. Matt Prior played a chancy innings, but both he and Bairstow survived to stumps.

England trail by 101 runs at stumps with five wickets still in hand. On paper one would probably back them to get to parity, but there is the obstacle of the second new ball to be negotiated. It is due after eight overs of the morning session tomorrow and what England do in the morning session will probably dictate with how much a lead or deficit England end up. Given that England batting second and needing to win they cannot really afford a significant deficit and could very much do with a decent lead. Prior and Bairstow need to survive to the new ball tomorrow and get themselves well enough set to at least get a few off it even if they get out to it in the end. Prior can be quite dangerous in that sort of situation, but one expects that a lot will really come down to whether or not Broad and Swann can score appreciable runs. Broad has talent, but has been out of form this summer whilst Swann is very hit-or-miss (often literally). Unless Prior and Bairstow do the very unlikely and knock off the deficit themselves, England will very much need Broad and Swann to show up with the bat tomorrow.

Lord’s, day one: South Africa 262-7

I suspect that Andrew Strauss will have enjoyed the first day of his hundredth Test more than Graeme Smith will have enjoyed the first day of his record-tying 93rd as captain. I said yesterday that I thought it would be a good toss to lose as both captains would likely bat despite the good bowling conditions and that seems to have been the case. Smith won the toss and batted and England bowled very well in the overcast conditions, reducing South Africa to 54-4 at lunch. It was comfortably England’s best session in the field in this series and the first time South Africa had been under real pressure.

It did not come without some fortune for England, however. Both Alviro Petersen and Jacques Kallis were ‘Kasprowiczed’: given out caught to a ball that took the glove after the bat had been released. The Kallis dismissal was particularly controversial as it was given not out by the on-field umpire and reviewed by England. The ball clearly hit the glove and Rod Tucker overturned the original decision, but he seemed to completely forget that the glove had to still be holding the bat. Whilst it was a matter of millimetres and milliseconds, there was never enough evidence to actually overturn the decision and had it been the other way there might not have even been enough evidence to uphold it. It was an absolute shocker and South Africa will no doubt feel aggrieved. For England, though, the morning session represented an overdue slice of luck after a series seemingly dominated by good balls missing the outside edge or miscued shots avoiding fielders.

Apart from those two questionable dismissals, England did bowl very well through the first part of the day and the dismissals of Smith and Amla were both down to simply excellent bowling. A very good away swinger from Anderson after lunch also accounted for de Villiers, but after that England took their foot off somewhat. It is not to say that they bowled poorly, but they were not bowling those sharp, testing balls that were helping to induce errors. Part of this was that the ball was older, of course, but once it stopped moving extravagantly England seemed to relax too much. This is all too often the case with England. Rudolph and Duminy batted well, but for most of their innings they were not under the same pressure as their predecessors. Even after Rudolph gifted his wicket to Swann, England did not seem to attack enough. Philander rode his luck a bit, but then settled into a proper innings and made it to stumps 46 not out. That’s more than any of South Africa’s top five and more than Smith, Amla and Kallis scored combined. Whilst he does have some skill with the bat, England will be very disappointed with letting him score so many.

Whilst England did get Duminy out with the second new ball, that was the only one they managed to get before stumps. They did do well overall; England are on top still and I am sure that having lost the toss Strauss would have taken 262-7 at stumps. But the tale told by South Africa going from 54-4 to 105-5 to 262-7 is not a pretty one for England and they really should be batting by now.

Tomorrow England need to finish South Africa off quickly. The pitch is not a minefield; it’s still recognisably a Lord’s wicket. But it’s not quite as flat as the usual style and we have seen deliveries misbehave already. It looks like 400 is probably a par first innings score, possibly even less. England really cannot waste any more time; they have already conceded more tail end runs than they would like and one expects that England will have to bowl South Africa out for under 300 to really still be on top. And whatever score South Africa do make, England then have to match it. England’s batsmen have good records at Lord’s, but they need to keep their heads tomorrow. We saw them get in and get out at Headingley; they must not do that here. They still have a good chance to take control of this match over the next two days and it’s crucial that they start to do so tomorrow. If they fail, however, South Africa could very easily be on top by stumps.

Eng v SA third Test preview

For the second time in as many years England go into the sixth Test of a summer knowing that a win will secure the number one spot. The pressure is much higher this time, however, as unlike against India there is no room for error. England have had a poor 2012, a fairly poor series and the preparation for this last Test has been far from ideal.

This crucial Test is also Andrew Strauss’ hundredth. Unfortunately this has largely been overshadowed by the Pietersen saga, but Strauss has handled himself extremely well and his comments on the matter of been a welcome oasis of level-headedness. Whilst England will miss Pietersen in that he is a talented batsmen, the increase in team unity should not be underestimated and nor should the benefit of having that distraction at least taken out of sight. It will leave the batting weakened, but it is important to remember that Pietersen has failed when the team needs him at least as often as he has played the sort of brilliant hundred we saw at Headingley. The batting is weakened, but not to the extent many seem to believe. England’s rise to the top of the Test ranking was built off team efforts and it is to this which they will be trying to return in their effort to stay there.

England will need their batsmen to fire, but they actually have a very good record batting at Lord’s and for all the talk about the batting I expect the key will be the bowling. England’s attack did much better at Headingley than they did at the Oval, but they won’t get a lot of help from the Lord’s surface. Despite effectively doing so at Headingley, England are unlikely to play five bowlers at Lord’s so at least one of Tim Bresnan or Steven Finn will miss out. But as I’ve said before I would actually drop them both and play Graham Onions who will likely be better suited to the conditions. Whoever is named in the XI tomorrow morning, however, they will all need to perform. England do not want to rely on Stuart Broad finding his length in a devastating spell as happened at Headingley.

South Africa meantime have little about which to worry. They will have no doubt enjoyed watching the Pietersen furore and although the Headingley match was probably closer than they might have liked they have the confidence of knowing that their plans have worked so far. There seems little chance of a change from the last Test; the only possibility was that Petersen might miss out with his hamstring injury but he has come up well. This will also be an important Test for Graeme Smith as he will tie Allan Border’s record of most Tests as captain.

The Lord’s pitch tends to flatten out at the match goes on and the rumour is that it is more green than usual to start this time so it might be a decent one on which to bowl first. The weather forecast is also for overcast conditions on the first day, which usually plays a big role at Lord’s. Strauss got a lot of flak for bowling first at Headingley, but it actually proved to be a decent decision. This must be weighed against the fact that the last time South Africa toured a very similar logic led to South Africa bowling first and conceding over 500. In the end, it might be an excellent toss to lose. I think this game will be one of steady partnerships and will probably be decided by whose bowlers can best instigate a collapse. England will have the confidence of having done so at Headingley, but still have a very formidable South African top order with which to contend.

Probably not the end of the KP saga

Over the weekend, Kevin Pietersen has released a video in which he completely backed down from his demands to retire from ODI cricket and play a full IPL. But he never apologised for any of his actions and he never mentioned textgate. The selectors gave him six hours to do so and when he either did or could not they dropped him anyway.

It was the right thing to do. As good as it was for Pietersen to back down from his demands, the manner in which he did so was not a matter that suggested he was trying to bring about an end to the affair. If he wanted to end things he could have said all of that directly to the ECB and also apologised for his behaviour. Instead he tried to garner public sympathy whilst simultaneously saying ‘your move’ to the ECB. I do think he deserves credit for dropping his ridiculous demands, but this was not even vaguely the right way to do it and he abjectly failed to address any of the other important issues. The ECB, for all their faults in this saga, did the right thing by telling him what he still needed to do and giving him an extra six hours in which to do so. As he did not, they were quite correct to still drop him.

The issue seems to primarily be the texts Pietersen sent to his friends in the South African dressing room and whether or not they were derogatory about Strauss and Flower. There can now be little doubt that they were and Pietersen seems absolutely incapable of actually apologising for them, or even trying to explain them. This is not, contrary to what a lot of people are saying, a matter of someone simply having a whinge to a friend about their boss. Not only was the friend in the opposition dressing room, one’s captain is not the same as one’s boss. Cricket is a team sport; it is not the same as an office environment. It is very important for the team that players show respect to their captain in a way that simply does not exist in most workplaces. Pietersen’s snub of Strauss at the press conference (which he implied was a mistake, but for which he did not apologise) and the texts he send to the opposition players may be acceptable in a standard workplace, but they are not acceptable in a dressing room. The eleven who take the field must play as a team and part of that is showing respect to the captain. Pietersen seems unable to understand that and looking at his history, never has. This is also why the people who ask why Swann was not dropped for the comments he make about Pietersen in his book or whether Strauss had said anything about Pietersen during the saga are missing the point. Pietersen isn’t the captain; Strauss is. That’s not to say they management or other players ought to be dismissive of anyone who is not the captain, but that it is a different situation. There are different rules and protocols to be observed and quite rightly. Unless Pietersen admits that his behaviour was not acceptable and actually apologises (and to the ECB, Flower and Strauss instead of the media this time) he should not be picked.

England will be without Pietersen for the Lord’s Test and contrary to a fairly popular view they most certainly can still win. Pietersen is a very good player, but he is not superman. He has a Test average under fifty which is less than Jonathan Trott and barely higher than Alastair Cook. He played a match winning innings at Colombo earlier this year, but he also cost England good positions in Abu Dhabi and at the Oval. There is no guarantee at all that he would have made a good score at Lord’s instead of getting out to a stupid shot after getting set; he does the latter with regularity. The last time England played without KP was in a must-win Test against major opposition at the Oval in 2009. England won by 197 runs. He is an asset, but he is not the only reason England win or even the main reason that England win. To say that England cannot win without Pietersen is utter lunacy.

I don’t think this is the end of the saga, however. I expect it will continue to rumble on in some form almost no matter what happens. Pietersen’s history suggests that even if he is allowed back in the future he will still do or say something at some point. In the immediate future though, there is the matter of whether he and the ECB can find enough common ground to get him to sign a new central contract. He has made this easier with his climbdown, but he will still need to answer for the texts he sent, on feels. But there is quite a bit of time left until the contracts are handed out and there is every chance that he will find his way back into the good graces of the ECB before then. I would not say it’s likely, but there is still a chance he could play against India in December. Either that, or we can expect the tour to be dominated by coverage of how Pietersen is playing in the Big Bash League instead.

England squad announcement

England’s squad for the third and unfortunately final Test at Lord’s will be named tomorrow (Saturday) at 09.30 BST/03.30 CDT. Whilst that will not confirm whether Pietersen plays at Lord’s or not, it will probably be a very good indication. I would be exceptionally surprised if he was in the squad and not in the XI on Thursday. With that in mind, I am very much hoping that when the names are read out they go straight from ‘Onions’ to ‘Prior’. I have said before why Pietersen should not play and the recent ‘textgate’ only adds to that. Despite the argument I have heard that people ‘bad mouth their employers all the time’, I cannot imagine anyone who contends that to do so directly to one’s competitors during the competition is in any way the done thing. It wouldn’t be a make-or-break issue for me, but only because that time has already passed. It appears that the selectors may think otherwise, though that is not a guarantee yet. But coming as it does in conjunction with Pietersen’s snub of Strauss at the post-match press conference, I cannot see how they could justify keeping him in.

Dropping KP does raise the question of how to replace him though and I would bring Bairstow back. He had not got much of a run against the West Indies and just scored an excellent century against Australia A. That’s as a recall to the squad, however, I’m not sure I’d actually play him. Strauss and Flower are dead set against five bowlers, but they did play four seamers in the last match and with Pietersen taking four wickets as the spinner it almost was a five man attack. And that attack all but took 20 wickets and had so much time not been lost to rain there is every chance that England would have won. My first choice would be to play Swann for KP as the spinner and go with five bowlers. I would also possibly play Onions for Bresnan. Bresnan has so far had really only one good spell this summer, against the West Indies at Trent Bridge. But overall his pace has been down and he still looks short of fitness. At his best I would play him, but he is not at his best and I think he needs to regain his fitness with Yorkshire before the tour of India. There is also the fact that we can expect a typical Lord’s wicket, the ECB could send Mick Hunt the proverbial King’s ransom and he would still refuse to make a pitch to order, and those tend to suit Onions. I’d still play him in the more likely four man attack and for the same reason, but in that scenario Finn would miss out as well. Finn is talented, but he has yet to set the world alight in his two chances this summer. I would then play Bairstow at six with Bell and Taylor moving up a spot.

My preferred XI for Lord’s: Strauss*, Cook, Trott, Bell, Taylor, Prior†, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions, Finn.

Or with a four man attack: Strauss*, Cook, Trott, Bell, Taylor, Bairstow, Prior†, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions.

Time for KP to go?

Kevin Pietersen’s feud with the ECB had been subtly simmering in the lead up to the Headingley Test and when he made 149 and took four wickets one expects it was on everyone’s mind at some level. But if not Pietersen quickly dragged it to the forefront with a press conference where, after refusing to wait for his captain, he stated that Lord’s may be his last Test. He has since added fuel to the fire by suggesting that one of his teammates is behind a Twitter parody of him. Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of that accusation (and it is ‘otherwise’) matters between Pietersen and the ECB certainly seem to be coming to a head and there is now the possibility that Lord’s won’t be his last Test, but that Headingley already was.

A lot has been made in the media and elsewhere about what the ECB ought to do. There are many suggesting that the ECB need to compromise with Pietersen, stating that having him leave the England team benefits no-one. That is all disputable and I will come back to it later, but what is clear is that the ECB have not handled the situation terribly well. I wrote some time ago why I thought they ought to have been more flexible about letting Pietersen retire from only ODIs. Since then there has been the revelation about KP wanting to miss Tests to play in the IPL that was leaked to the media. But the interesting thing is that it was leaked. Pietersen never said anything publicly and there is a reasonable suggestion that it was leaked in a (successful) attempt to discredit him. There is a strong suggestion that the ECB higher-ups are not merely not interested in compromise but are actively waging a PR war against Pietersen. Independent of anything else, this is simply not right and should stop immediately.

But Pietersen is far from blameless. His stated need to spend more time with his family and his desire to play a full season of the IPL (and now an interest in the Big Bash League as well) are mutually exclusive unless he meant that he has a second family in Dehli with whom he wants to spend more time. He claims that money is not his motivation and I do actually believe that, at least to an extent. But his motivations do not seem to be what he says they are either; it does not add up. He claims that there are ‘many issues’ to be addressed and it seems a fair bet that most of them revolve around Pietersen and his ego. The fact that he not only talked about how much the spectators want to see him play (so he wants to deny them that when it is inconvenient for him, apparently) and how it is hard to be him are telling. Part of the captaincy saga at the end of 2008 was that he wanted Andy Flower, then Peter Moores assistant, out as well. There is every chance that he is still unhappy over his failure.

I think in the end that the ECB need to take a hard stance with Pietersen. The argument that most employers would find a compromise for such an important performer does not hold weight for me. Not only is the spectator environment of a cricket team inherently unlike any other work environment, how many organisations of any type would respond positively to a request to miss two big meetings in order to do a bit of work for a high paying competitor? For all the faults of the ECB, Pietersen is being inherently unreasonable. I have never heard anyone who suggests that the ECB compromise with Pietersen actually suggest what sort of compromise could be reached; the implication often seems to be that the ECB should not compromise but cave into Pietersen’s demands. If his primary demand is to only retire from ODIs then something could probably be negotiated, but by definition Pietersen would have to make concessions as well. There can be no compromise on the issue of playing the whole IPL, in both the figurative sense that the ECB will (rightly) not budge and in the literal sense that there is no middle ground to be had. Either he plays in the whole tournament as he wants or, as is the case now, he plays in only part of it; there is no halfway between them. And as for the other issues, it is impossible to know if any compromise on them could be reached without knowing what they are. It is hard to imagine much that could be given to him without it being unfairly special treatment though. And once again, the nature of compromise would demand that KP budge from his position as well. It’s all well and good to say that the ECB should negotiate with him, but it is not that simple.

There is also the issue of team unity to be considered. Pietersen’s belief that one of his teammates is behind the Twitter parody of him is insane and paranoid on the face of it, there were Tweets sent whilst all of his teammates and the rather solid alibi of being in the field amongst other things, but it does show that there are dressing room problems. Pietersen also hinted at some in the press conference on Monday. If his teammates already dislike him, that is all the more reason for the ECB not to give him special treatment. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is a good reason for the ECB not to compromise with him at all. Dressing room unity is important and it is something at which Strauss and Flower have worked hard in the wake of the captaincy saga. But Pietersen has never really been able to fit in properly. He left Natal in a huff for England and he left Nottinghamshire by having his kit thrown off the balcony. His brief time as England captain was marked mostly by suggestions of dressing room cliques and he left Hampshire under a bit of a cloud as well. The attitude that he showed to his captain in his press conference was simply unacceptable. The other members of England’s dressing room do not seem to have any problem fitting in despite being a rather diverse bunch, so this problem seems to stem entirely from Pietersen. There is an easy solution to it.

I would not play Pietersen at Lord’s. I would not give him a swan song; I would not give him one last chance to impress. What started as a reasonable argument about workload has descended into irrationality, egotism and paranoia. There is no reason for the ECB to bend over to make accommodations for a player who only deigns to perform a few times a year and who is a disruptive influence on the dressing room throughout. No player, however good, is irreplaceable and no player is bigger than the team. If Pietersen cannot comprehend that then he must go and go immediately.

Headingley, day five: match drawn

I said yesterday the match would be drawn and so it was. But that would be too easy and what should have been the least interesting day of the match (and for the first session made it look absolutely certain to be) ended up the most exciting. England went out in the morning looking to instigate a quick collapse. They had a decent go, the bowling was good, but South Africa really had the rub of the green with possible catches evading fielders and the ball beating the bat entirely. They also came off for rain a couple of times and it was not until a couple of overs before a late lunch that England finally shifted South Africa’s makeshift opening partnership. Incredibly, it was Kevin Pietersen to Jacques Rudolph again. Pietersen bowled four balls to Rudolph in the match and dismissed him twice.

A few days ago, I said that I thought England had made the right call by bowling four seamers as Swann had not bowled well at Headingley and there was not any turn on the first four days. Today, however, there was turn and Pietersen found it. Whilst I still do see the logic of the decision, it is now clear that it was indeed the wrong one. Pietersen got good turn, good bounce and three wickets in the innings. The only caveat to those wickets was that one of them, the dismissal of Smith, was very questionable and Amla’s dismissal was nothing whatsoever to do with spin as he tamely hit a full toss straight to cover. The Smith dismissal was an interesting one as he was given out caught at short leg and discussed it with his partner before deciding to review it. The replay showed that he had hit his boot, but the actual view of where the ball either did or did not hit the bat was obscured by James Taylor. If one was to make a decision based off that alone one would say not out, but there was certainly not enough evidence to overturn the umpire’s call of out and so it stayed. To his credit, Smith took the decision with good grace.

That dismissal cost South Africa in an odd way later though as it meant that South Africa were out of reviews. This was very unlucky for South Africa as I have seen teams get the review back in similar situations in the past and I am not entirely sure why South Africa did not. When Broad then trapped AB de Villiers lbw, South Africa could not review and the replay showed that the ball was sliding down leg. That said, it looked plumb live and there is actually every chance it would not have been reviewed. Unfortunately we won’t ever know, but regardless of whether or not it would have been reviewed it was a poor decision by the umpire which South Africa did not have the opportunity to correct.

This was the start of a fearsome spell by Stuart Broad that very much livened up the match. He had previously started to bowl too short again, but here he remembered to pitch the ball up and try to hit the stumps and he was rewarded. De Villiers may have got a poor decision, but he was still entirely beaten by the delivery and ended up playing all around a fairly straight one. JP Duminy was then trapped lbw (correctly this time) to a very similarly full and straight delivery that he played poorly. A few overs later, Vernon Philander departed to one that had nipped back and hit him in front of off. This is what Broad does when he is bowling at his best and it is so important for England that he remembers to do so. Only once he establishes that danger for the batsmen can he use the short ball to any effect, as he subsequently did to get rid of Kallis. Broad finished with an excellent and well deserved five-fer.

Broad’s heroics led to the best part of the day and possibly the match: Smith and Strauss, two of the most defensive captains in world cricket, had a mini contest to see which one could grab some sort of initiative and mental edge over the other heading into the Lord’s Test. Smith declared with nine down in a purely symbolic gesture (Tahir is very much a number eleven) but the gesture was clear. In response, Strauss juggled the England batting order and sent Kevin Pietersen out to open the run chase. Despite this, however, neither side still really went all out for it. South Africa had a reasonably attacking field, but only about the standard for the start of an innings and England, despite being up with or close to the required rate for a long period still sent Trott in at number four. Trott is a good ODI batsman, and actually was scoring at over a run a ball for the start of his innings, but it was still more of a defensive move than anything else. England’s entire approach actually seemed quite muddled. Prior, a very attacking option, came in after Trott and it was only when he was finally out that England stopped going for it. Taylor and Broad never got to bat at all though. As nice as it was to see England try to win the match, the execution was poor and one was left with the impression that England could have come a lot closer.

In a way, England have already lost the series. Whilst they can still get out with a draw, their excellent home series winning streak (seven consecutive home series won, dating back to the last time South Africa toured) is over and all they can do is try to make it a less impressive unbeaten streak. They will also still have not managed to beat South Africa and put to rest the discussion of which side is better. They have only themselves to blame for this; not entirely because of the actual results (though obviously that as well) but because the series is only three Tests. This is always a possibility of a three Test series; the ECB could have and should have scheduled another Test and now it will cost them.