Tag: EngvSA

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.

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.

Headingley, day four: South Africa 39-0

England came into today with a chance to get a very big lead and put South Africa under real pressure on the last day. That possibility ended two balls into the day when Kevin Pietersen was trapped lbw. It was South Africa’s morning even after that as England were bowled out just before lunch for a lead of only six. Whilst it is not too bad to lose five mostly tail end wickets in one session and whilst still getting any sort of first innings lead after the loss of Pietersen was still pretty good, England could have done better. Matt Prior batted very well in the morning to keep South Africa from really getting on the front foot whilst Bresnan doggedly held up an end. Bresnan ultimately only added nine, however, and his departure prompted a rush of wickets. Broad was next to go and he can certainly be disappointed. He is a decent batsman with a Test hundred to his name, but he has not shown that of late and today he gifted his wicket to the leg spinner Tahir. Tahir does occasionally bowl a good ball, but this was not at all one of them and both Prior and Jimmy quickly gifted their wickets in similar style to leave him with a deceptive three-fer.

England’s lead of six was enough to leave the match finely poised though and bowling well to skittle South Africa could have put them in a winning position. But the rains came, first after only two overs of South Africa’s innings (in which Smith had survived a big lbw shout and Rudolph looked very scratchy) and then again before tea and meant that there was very little play today. Strictly speaking the statement about England being able to win by bowling South Africa out quickly and cheaply still applies, but it would now have to happen amazingly fast for England to still chase down the runs. I don’t see any other result than a draw tomorrow.

Headingley, day three: England 351-5

Today was an ‘exciting’ day of Test cricket. Not entirely in the usual sense of a tight run-chase or some tense bat v ball contests (though to an extent those as well), but in the much more simple sense of Kevin Pietersen trying to hit the South African bowlers into Lancashire. It was an absolutely staggering innings; he actually played fairly sensibly for a long period, but then South Africa tried to bounce him out. It was an odd tactic as the ball was fairly old, but one could see the logic of playing on Pietersen’s ego. The execution was all wrong, however. South Africa only bowled bouncers and the pitch and ball were simply not quick enough to really provide a problem. The field setting telegraphed the intent and Pietersen had time to happily smash the ball to the rope. Not once did South Africa try to slip in a yorker which might have done for him the way he was sitting on the back foot. Pietersen simply fed off the short stuff and was at his imperious best by the time the new ball was taken. South Africa would have probably thought, I certainly did, that the extra pace and movement would lead to KP missing one of his extravagant strokes, but it never happened. The ball went even faster off the bat and Pietersen both lofted Dale Steyn over his head for six and flat batted one back at Steyn’s head. It was an absolutely staggering innings, utterly majestic. I still do not believe that Pietersen comes through often enough to justify either his ego or his stupid shots, but it is lovely to watch when it comes off.

At the other end for most Pietersen’s innings was the debutant James Taylor. It is not an easy way to make a debut with England under a bit of pressure against the very good South African attack and KP’s extravagance at the other end cannot have helped matters. He played with excellent composure, however, to get to 34 from over a hundred balls. He was finally bowled through the gate by Morkel which was disappointing, but he looked Test quality. He played some lovely shots and worked his way through a difficult period. He did not go on to make the big score that would have guaranteed his place for Lord’s, however, and England will of course hope that he does not have to bat in the second innings. It’s hard to know what the selectors will do if Bopara makes himself available for the last Test, but I would definitely have Taylor in the squad for Lord’s on the back of this.

Pietersen’s innings really put England back into contention after a fairly poor first part of the day. England never collapsed to put them in the mire, but a lot of the batsmen got in and got out. Strauss got a good ball and Cook got an okay one, but Trott and Bell both played horrific drives away from the body to get out. They all made some runs (though only eleven for Bell) but it was just not enough, especially from Trott. Trott basically built his career around not chasing balls outside off, but this is not the first time he has got out doing so this year. I don’t know what has caused this change from him and it could be as simple as a dip in form. That does happen. But I worry that he has been put under so much pressure to score faster in ODIs that it is affecting his Test game.

England are very much in this match, they go into stumps on 351-5 and trailing by 68. There is not a lot of true batting to come, but KP and Prior are still in and if South Africa can not dislodge them early they will fancy getting England all the way to level terms. England still have Bresnan, who batted well at the Oval, and the mercurial Broad to bat so England could actually get a decent lead if South Africa do not bounce back tomorrow morning. Even if that does not happen, however, South Africa have some injury concerns. Alviro Petersen has a grade one hamstring injury and will only bat if necessary and Smith landed rather heavily on his knee whilst fielding near the close. It’s not yet clear how badly his injured, but South Africa will really want him not only fit but opening. Their other batsmen are talented, but facing the new ball is a tough ask and South Africa will be at a distinct disadvantage if Rudolph has to open (as I am guessing he would) with a non-specialist. Right now all three results are still possible and it should all be very interesting tomorrow.

Headingley, day two: England 48-0

Today was another slightly mixed day at Headingley, but overall it was a better one for South Africa than England. England actually bowled incredibly in the morning session; Anderson and Broad got a lot of movement with the new ball and Anderson in particular was comprehensively beating the batsmen. It was yet another such spell from him that did not get a wicket, however. It seems like he has had four or five spells like that this year where he has been comfortably the best bowler without any reward. The fact that he conceded just five runs in his eight over spell gives some hint of how well he bowled. But Petersen and Rudolph survived through a combination of skill and luck; it was precisely what they had to do if they were to get South Africa to a good total. The one wicket to fall in the morning session was very surprisingly to Kevin Pietersen who got just his second ball to turn sharply. It did, of course, raise more questions about England’s team selection but I don’t think it is too justified. The conditions still favoured the seamers and they could have cleaned up South Africa before Pietersen even came on to bowl if things had gone their way. There is no reason to think that Swann would have been a more of an asset then the fourth seamer.

South Africa’s ultimate total of 419 all out was certainly a very good one. Duminy batted well with the tail and England had their usual trouble in finishing them off which combined to put South Africa in a pretty commanding position. England will have to bat much better than they did in the first Test and indeed much better than they have done for most of the year. South Africa showed today the benefits of patiently waiting out a tricky spell and England need to follow suit. And to their credit, they have made a start. In the part of the evening session that they managed before bad light and rain stopped play England made it to 48-0 and to do so had to get through some nasty spells. Particularly as the cloud started to come in near the close and Morkel was bowling very well in the dark England showed proper application.

It’s a long way yet for England to go; they still trail by 371 runs and probably have to establish some sort of first innings lead. Tomorrow could be a deciding day in the Test. If England still have a decent number of wickets in hand at stumps then South Africa will face an uphill battle to force victory and England may even get into a position from which to win the Test. But South Africa will fancy their chances of bowling England out before close and from there setting an ungettable target. There is not a lot in the actual wicket, most of the movement is now coming from the conditions so England need to get a few players to dig in and play long innings. The most likely candidates are at the top of the order, so South Africa will really be angling for some early wickets tomorrow. Pietersen is probably going to be a liability and James Taylor is on debut, so one would have to say that South Africa have the better chance.

Headingley, day one: SA 262-5

England, for once, showed some admirable aggression today. No, they did not finally play five bowlers. But they did something similar and played four quick bowlers leaving out Swann. Partly due to this and partly due to the conditions looking bowler friendly, Strauss also opted to bowl first upon winning the toss. There was plenty of criticism of this both at the time and subsequently, but I think it was the right move. I would have preferred five bowlers with Swann included, but knowing that was never going to happen this was the next best thing. Headingley tends to favour seamers and Swann in particular has never been effective there. England have to attack in this Test; they have to find a way to win and I do think that the best way to do that was to select the four bowlers who would be getting the most out of the conditions. If I had to make a change I actually might have brought Onions in, who probably would have used the conditions very well also. The same applies to the decision to bowl first, especially once it had been decided to play four bowlers. The conditions were cloudy for a lot of the day and should be so tomorrow as well and bowling first gave us an excellent chance to try to put South Africa on the back foot. It did not come off as well as Strauss would have liked, but I definitely do not think it in any way backfired (at least not yet) either.

The first part of the day was dominated by the controversy about Steven Finn being ‘dead-balled’ for hitting the stumps with his knee during his delivery stride. This is something that Finn does with some regularity, but for the first time the batsmen, Graeme Smith and Alviro Petersen, complained to the umpire that it was ‘distracting’ and Finn was informed that the ball would henceforth be declared dead whenever the bails were dislodged. All of the actions did take place in accordance with the laws and the umpires did apply this consistently; both an edge to slip and a pair of boundaries were discounted so one certainly would not say that Finn was treated unfairly. That said, the fact that no other batsman has ever complained about Finn, the fact that there was actually no precedent of any batsmen having complained about a myriad of bowlers in the past who regularly hit the stumps and the fact that Smith was not so distracted that he could not dispatch a couple of the dead balls to the boundary suggests that the complaint was borne less out of distraction and more out of a desire to put Finn off. I have a lot of trouble believing that it was anything other than gamesmanship by Smith.

England did not do as well with the ball as they would have liked, but I do think that the general suggestion that by bowling first England should have South Africa all out by now are a bit harsh. I don’t think bowling first should be considered as radical a tactic as it is often is and if South Africa had one won the toss and batted I think most would say that it was about honours even now. Perhaps a slight edge to South Africa. Certainly England are still very much in the match. Alviro Petersen is still there overnight after making an excellent hundred today (as an interesting aside: his last three Test innings are now 156, 0 and 124*), but there is not a lot of other batting left. Of the other five batsmen who are yet to be dismissed, three are tailenders and two are Rudolph and Duminy. Rudolph is a good county player, but does not fill one with confidence at Test level and Duminy was actually selected after Rudolph. This does not mean that they can not or will not score runs, of course, but England will fancy their chances of getting through them pretty quickly tomorrow morning.

With the rate South Africa batted today they can probably expect to get to about 350 by lunch tomorrow and they will probably be thinking of 400 as something of a minimum total for the innings. Whether they can get that far will likely depend on Petersen; I expect that if he bats through to lunch South Africa will have a great chance of getting a score well over 400. One of England’s weaknesses in the past few years has been bowling out sides when a top order batsman has been shepherding the tail and even if the other players only bat to their fairly low averages alongside Petersen it should be enough to put South Africa in control of the match. On the other side of that coin though, if England can get him early tomorrow then they will have a great chance to knock South Africa over very cheaply. The second new ball is only seven overs old and the bowlers will be fresh as they always are at the start of a day. But regardless of South Africa’s total, I suspect tomorrow will mostly be about whether England can bat properly this time. It is that which will decide the match.

Second Test squad

England have named a 13-man squad for the second Test against South Africa at Headingley and there is one surprise omission. After I said after the first Test that I did not think that Bopara would be dropped, he was left out of the squad due to ‘personal reasons’. Whilst obviously I, and I suspect everyone, hopes that all is well with Bopara this is a boost for England. I don’t know how many times I have said that he should not be in the side. In his place comes James Taylor, now of Nottinghamshire. It is interesting as it does seem to be a slight case of selection on potential. Taylor is a very good, very talented player who had a very poor 2011 (which may have cost him a place in the Test side at the time). He has had a better 2012 and he is an excellent choice, but Nick Compton is in better form. Still, Taylor very much deserves his chance and it is probably overdue. Hopefully he gets the extended run that Bairstow (rather unfairly) did not. Unless the personal reasons are long-term, I do expect Bopara will be back soon so Taylor cannot assume that he will have long in which to prove himself. Hopefully he gets a big score immediately and makes himself very hard to drop.

The rest of the squad of 13 is unchanged, so there is once again the possibility that England will play five bowlers. I would still be very surprised if it actually happens, but the performance at the Oval certainly looked a bowler short. Though I do expect a four-man (three seamer) attack, the exact composition of it may change. There is a suggestion that Stuart Broad was perhaps not entirely fit at the Oval and if he is still carrying a niggle then he should not play at Headingley. It is also possible that Finn could come in for Bresnan after the latter did not look particularly good in the first Test. Though as I said after the Test it would be harsh; Bresnan really looked no worse than the rest. It looks necessary to get some variation into the attack, however, and Bresnan is probably the odd man out if that is what happens.

My preferred XI, assuming Broad is fit, would be: Strauss*, Cook, Trott, KP, Bell, Prior†, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn.

My predicted XI, taking into account the previous selection preferences and again assuming that Broad is fit, is: Strauss*, Cook, Trott, KP, Bell, Taylor, Prior†, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Anderson.

If Broad is not fit I would replace him with Onions (batting at eleven) in my preferred XI and Finn (also batting at XI) in my predicted XI.

South Africa win by an innings and twelve runs

The final scoreline probably disguises the true gap between the way the two sides played. England won the first day, but ought to have done better. South Africa dominated from there. That said, England probably should still have escaped with a draw. The pitch was still a very flat one even on the last day, though it had broken up a bit by then. Jimmy Anderson and Tim Bresnan made it very clear that once batsmen played themselves in they were hard to dislodge. England simply threw too many wickets away in their effort to get a draw and more broadly in the Test itself.

England’s first innings total of 385 always looked a bit under par and South Africa showed just how far short it was. South Africa in general and Hashim Amla in particular batted with incredible patience on a flat wicket. They did very seldom played outside the off stump and Graeme Smith did well to survive and negate a testing spell from Graeme Swann on the third morning. It was an example of how to bat in stark contrast to the way England went about their affairs for far too much of the match. The first day was especially galling. England were in a great position with the wicket looking very flat and South Africa’s attack looking a bit rusty, but still Trott fished outside his off-stump to get out and Kevin Pietersen played an idiotic attempt at a hook just before the new ball. The next day Bopara played a half a hook to nick behind and Tim Bresnan somehow contrived to play a wide long hop from Tahir onto his stumps. Those sort of mental lapses cost England dearly, especially as South Africa never seemed in any great danger of making them. I count eight avoidable dismissals by batsmen who ought to have known better and I am being rather generous. That number could easily be expanded to twelve or more. England were probably never going to put up 637-2, of course, but 450 should have been a minimum and those extra 65 runs probably would have been the difference in the match.

England’s bowling was lacklustre though. There was a period on the second day where the conditions very much favoured the bowlers and in that time England looked fantastic. Jimmy got an early wicket and Broad looked very threatening. But after the sun came out, there was suddenly nothing. The best thing South Africa did with the ball was that they kept testing England and making things a bit difficult even when there was not a lot out there. All of England’s bowlers seemed a bit down on pace and there was no out and out aggression of the type that South Africa occasionally produced. Once the long partnerships started to develop with the ball not swinging England looked out of ideas. This is where a fifth bowler, especially one such as Steven Finn who offered a bit of variety, would have been very useful. Especially seeing as Bopara made nought and 22 and threw his wicket away twice. England can say that South Africa had the rub of the conditions, and that would be true, but it is not enough to account for the disparity. England looked short a bowler and the bowlers who were there looked short of match fitness. Almost as if not playing any red ball cricket in almost two months was not a good lead up to the series.

England will take few positives from this match. They do not even have another three or four Tests in which to come back, only two thanks to the ECB. They must play a lot better at Headingley in two weeks, though that is something of a result ground and there will likely be more in it for the bowlers. Work must be done, however, to ensure that the other bowlers are properly match-fit. There was some suggestion that a few were carrying niggles; we have good replacements for Broad and Bresnan so if one or both of them is not fit they should not play. I would also play Finn no matter what. As alluded to above, he offers some variation in an attack that can otherwise look bereft of ideas when the ball is not swinging. Ideally for me Finn would come in for Bopara. I know people say that since our batting failed we should not drop a batsman, but playing six batsmen for the sake thereof is pointless. We cannot just play any batsman because that does not shore up anything; it just weakens the bowling. If we can find a batsman who can regularly contribute then that would be excellent, but Bopara is not that batsmen and there are not currently any others who would not in some way be a gamble. Now is not the time to gamble; Finn has a Test average of 14, that’s as high as Bopara’s average against teams other than the West Indies.

I don’t think England will drop Bopara, but I still think Finn ought to play. More or less by definition, this means Bresnan is to miss out unless Broad is injured. I have seen a few calls to drop Broad and although he had a poor Test I think they are very rash. Coming into the Test he had over fifty wickets at an average under 19 in the previous twelve months. One bad Test is no reason to drop him, meaning that Bresnan is the unlucky bowler. It is an unfortunate aspect of England’s current strength in depth and also a slightly ridiculous one given that they persist in playing a non-performing batsman at six.

England have a lot of work to do both going into and following the Headingley Test to rescue this series, but they did not get to be number one in the world by accident. It was a poor performance this time, but it is far too early to draw any conclusions just yet.