The Oval, day four: Eng 102-4

Spare a thought for Alviro Petersen. Two days ago he got a peach of a delivery from James Anderson; it which swung back in at him, beat the inside edge of the bat and trapped him plumb leg before for an eleven ball duck. In the 48 hours after that, South Africa lost just one wicket and three batsmen all scored centuries. One of those batsmen was Hashim Amla who remained patience personified at the crease and went on to record the first triple hundred in South Africa’s history. It was an absolutely amazing innings and it was only as he neared the mark that he started to show any sign of nerves. He became only the second batsman ever to score more than 300 at the Oval, with the other being Len Hutton in that famous match against Australia. The 13 hours and ten minutes he spent making Amla unbeaten 311 was also only seven minutes short of the time Hutton was at the crease in 1938. That was not the only significant mark of the day as South Africa’s 637-2 declared was the first time England have conceded over 600 in an innings since the 2009 Cardiff Test.

England were given exactly four sessions to bat as South Africa declared at tea. It was a declaration that was perhaps only aggressive by Graeme Smith’s standards, but it was very clever as it meant that runs would be important as well. He gave England an incentive to try to score the 252 needed to make South Africa bat again. It really should have been possible. The pitch had been sucking the life out of the Test for most of four days and the batsmen had only struggled under cloud. England, however, promptly did their best to make the pitch look much spicier than it had ever been. Cook did get a good ball to get out and Trott got a decent one, though he followed it a bit. Kevin Pietersen threw his wicket away again. He had already offered a dolly of a chance to Kallis at slip that had been put down when he got a straight one from Morkel and somehow played inside the line to a ball that knocked over middle stump. He played the sort of defensive shot that I have been known to play and that is not a compliment. It was simply appalling. It was Strauss’ dismissal, the last of the day, that was the real blow to England. Strauss was the last batsman who one would back to bat deep in the innings, but he went out top edging a sweep to Tahir. It was a bad shot, but to his and Tahir’s credit it was a bad shot borne of very good bowling. The previous two balls from Tahir had really leapt out of the rough and it was clear that Strauss felt that he had to find a counter. To be fair, he was probably right; there was every chance he would have got out if he had stayed as he was too.

England’s position at stumps is one that looks hopeless. They still trail by exactly 150 runs and have lost the three batsmen most likely to grind out an innings to save the match. Ravi Bopara and Ian Bell are the two not out batsmen and they are England’s last two middle order players. Tomorrow will tell us a lot about whether or not the selectors knew what they were doing in selecting Bopara. He and Bell simply must find a way to build a partnership. There is still a chance that England could at least make South Africa bat again, though I think the odds of England actually drawing the Test are low. England will have to have Bell, Bopara and Prior erase almost all of the deficit and then hope that the pressure to get wickets shifts to South Africa enough that Bresnan, Broad and Swann can build a lead big enough that South Africa do not have time to chase it. Tomorrow is supposed to be the best day for batting in the Test, but England will simply have to do much better than they did today.

There are a few causes for English optimism. One is of course that the last time these two side played each other, England managed to cling on for nine-down draws twice. Another relates to the earlier alluded to Cardiff Test of 2009. It was the last time that England conceded 600 in an innings and the scores are quite similar to those so far in this Test. At Cardiff, England needed 240 to make Australia bat again and found themselves 46-4 and later 70-5. That ended in a draw, though England did not have as much time to bat then. A little bit farther back, however, England have actually not lost any of the last three matches in which we have conceded over 600 in an innings.

All of that could be construed as simply grasping at straws though and to be honest that is exactly what it is. The history and stats are interesting, but tomorrow it will come down to whether or not England’s remaining seven batsmen can find a way to keep out the vaunted South African attack for the better part of ninety overs. The result will say a lot about both sides.

The Oval, day three: SA 403-2

At the start of today the match was well set up between South Africa and England. At stumps it is well set up between South Africa and the draw. England bowled very well for the first hour and decently well all day, but had no help from the weather, pitch or batsmen. Graeme Smith survived a working over from Graeme Swann, but after that it was one-way traffic as South Africa batted and batted and batted. The one wicket that fell in the day, Smith bowled by Bresnan, was even a bit fortuitous as it came off an inside edge, pad and boot before tricking onto the stumps.

South Africa batted very, very well today. One does not expect Smith, Amla and Kallis to bat poorly, of course, but this was special by even their standards. England could not have done a lot more than they did. Whilst there was the usual slight lack of inventiveness by Strauss and Bresnan was very underbowled, there was never much of an impression that it would have made a difference. For the most part, England did what I suggested they do yesterday. Anderson, Broad and Bresnan all mostly bowled wide of off stump; the only exceptions were the occasional bits of waywardness. There was just about enough of that waywardness that the batsmen could still get runs however and with no swing at all there was never a lot of danger for them. All they had to do was avoid making the sort of mistakes that Trott and KP did for England, at which they succeeded with aplomb.

South Africa had enough time to take a lead of 18 runs into the close with eight wickets still in hand. With two days (187 overs by my understanding) left in the match the question is now not whether England can pull off a victory, but whether South Africa can get enough to win with enough time left to force a victory. It is something with which they have struggled a bit in the relatively recent past. They have declared in either the second or third innings of a match ten times in the past three years and managed to win in just three of them. Also in the last three years they have played 23 matches and won nine of them, but failed to bowl their opposition out on the last day eight times. Smith is very conservative with his declarations and I think he will be looking for at least a lead of 200. (Given that he usually bats for about fifty runs beyond what I think the highest reasonable total is, he could be headed for 650.) Unless Smith is much more aggressive than usual or England’s bowlers allow them to score very quickly, South Africa will probably have to bat past tea tomorrow which will not leave them a lot of time on what is still a very flat wicket. It will be interesting to see how tomorrow changes things, but right now I think the draw is the most likely result.

The Oval, day two: SA 86-1

Yesterday belonged to England, but due to the carelessness of Trott and Pietersen not by as much as may have been the case. That is something that looms large now as South Africa took today by about as much as England took yesterday. I said then that South Africa would need to use the more favourable conditions in the first hour to get one of Cook or Bell out and then get into Prior et al before England had a good platform. That is exactly what they did and actually a bit more. Cook went first, followed by Bopara for a duck and then Bell was bowled by a bail-trimmer all in under an hour. Even with some good fight by the lower order, England only got to 385. Most of the credit should go to South Africa who bowled much better than they did yesterday. They got more help from the almost perfect conditions for swing and England did throw a couple of wickets away, but it was most of all an excellent performance and 385 is probably lower than they dared hope last night.

England actually got a bit unfortunate with the weather when they bowled. Broad was getting some good movement and Anderson was swinging the ball around corners. The delivery from the latter to trap Alviro Petersen leg before was all but unplayable and both Smith and Amla had some close calls. England had eleven overs of that before tea and looked like they could really make some inroads after the interval, but the rain which had been skirting the Oval all day finally hit and fell for almost two hours. The ball had stopped swinging by the time they got back out and there was a real lack of intensity from England as well. Smith and Amla were relatively carefree; their only worries being a ball from Swann which spun narrowly past Smith’s off stump and a streaky edge from Amla (off Bopara of all bowlers). The overnight score does not yet put South Africa on top, but leaves the match well set up for tomorrow.

South Africa are still far from a safe position. England might have wanted 450 or more, but that was to put the match away. Three hundred and eighty-five is still very competitive. With the pitch already turning, South Africa will want a fairly large first innings lead before they chase anything. I expect they will probably view 450 as almost a minimum. Certainly England will be happy if they can keep South Africa close to parity. Whilst Smith and Amla have recovered well, it would have been a disaster for South Africa if one of them had gone cheaply and England still have a chance to dismiss one or both of them for less than fifty. With South Africa carrying a few weaker batsmen, they really need big totals from their star players and probably need a hundred from at least one of these two. England are not in as good a position as they were, but they still definitely have a chance to take control of the match.

Tomorrow looks like it will be mostly about whether England can get the ball to move. South Africa never looked comfortable when Anderson was swinging it in the afternoon (few would with the way it was moving) and Swann got enough turn in the evening to cause a couple of problems, though not many. The weather forecast is for very batting friendly conditions tomorrow, though that does not mean a whole lot. If it is true though, England will probably rely on Swann getting turn and Bresnan getting reverse swing until the second new ball arrives in the late afternoon. England have done a very good job in recent years of plugging away relentlessly until the batsmen make an error and I expect tomorrow will be a similar sort of day, though they will probably find it easier once they break the Smith/Amla partnership. I expect South Africa will bat through the day and be close to parity by stumps. The match may hinge on how many wickets England can take before then.

The Oval, day one: Eng 267-3

The first hour or so of the match went roughly as I expected. But that was about it. Of course, I did not expect Morne Morkel to open the bowling and trap Strauss lbw with his fourth ball of the day. But seeing the bowlers on top in slightly tricky conditions was nothing surprising. It was after that, as that South Africa’s excellent attack started to look toothless, that my expectations started to look misplaced. Morkel was really only accurate with that one delivery; he was quite wayward overall. Steyn was down on both pace and aggression. But perhaps the most disappointing was Philander. He took the new ball with Morkel, but he never looked special. That is by no means to say that he is not, or that he will not come back later in the Test or series, but for today he was a long way short of the form that saw him take 51 wickets in seven Tests. Tahir meantime was just as much of a non-entity as I expected he would be; he was only notable for getting enough turn to suggest that it will be a tough to bat on days four and five.

There were a few possible reasons for the performance from South Africa. The obvious suggestion is that they were undercooked. They did not get a lot of time to bowl in their warmups and when they did do so they looked slightly poor. The conditions did not help them as much as they might have liked either. The pitch was flat and although the start was delayed due to rain the sun came out around lunchtime and by and large stayed out. The predicted occasional interruptions never materialised. And not to be ignored is the fact that South Africa were quickly up against two very good batsmen in Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott. The two batted together for 56.4 overs and put on 170 for the second wicket. Once the shine had come off the ball a bit, South Africa very quickly looked like they did not have any backup plans. They were reduced to bowling well outside off stump in the hope that Cook or Trott would go fishing. Technically it did work as that was how Trott was finally out, but almost anyone who has ever watched Trott and Cook bat could tell you that if it was going to work it would take a long time. A lot of people found this partnership ‘boring’, but I thought it was actually very absorbing. It never felt like nothing was going to happen partly because Trott or Cook would occasionally play a beautiful shot to the rope, but also because it always felt like South Africa might have something special in reserve and it was a long time before one felt that England were even relatively comfortable after the early wicket.

Trott did finally fish at a ball that was too far outside off and edged it behind after tea. It brought Kevin Pietersen in with the score 170-2, but even with the match seemingly well set up for him he had a very odd innings. He was very scratchy to start; at one point he had scored six off 22 deliveries and a lot of those a bit streakily. He did settle down though against Tahir and looked very well set to make it to stumps and maybe even get some runs off the new ball. Except before that happened he tried to pull a short ball from Kallis that was not in the right position and all he could do was strangle it behind on 42. It was a terrible end to an innings where he really should have gone on and dominated. The pitch was flat and the attack was flagging, not to mention his motivation playing South Africa and after the events of last week. It was really a classic KP dismissal. It left England still in a good position, but needing to negotiate a tricky period before stumps.

Given that it is a fairly traditional Oval pitch, England are probably looking at 450 as being almost a minimum from this position. But the ball is still relatively new, only nine overs old, and the South African pacemen will be fresh tomorrow morning. The first hour will thus be very important; South Africa almost have to use that time to take a wicket. If Cook and Bell survive and get settled then South Africa could be staring down the barrel of a huge total. Alastair Cook has some remarkable stats after going to a hundred: he actually averages 180 in his first 19 tons. Of his last six (since the start of the Ashes) he has two doubles and only one dismissal between 100 and 130. Ian Bell has been in good form so far this summer, and indeed last summer as well, and then there is the English lower order with which to contend. If Prior and Bresnan come in sometime tomorrow afternoon with England already up to 400 and a licence to play their shots against an old ball they could add a lot of runs very quickly. The best hope for South Africa will be to break this nascent partnership early tomorrow morning and then send Bopara back cheaply. South Africa can keep themselves in the match if they do that, but they will have a lot of work to do even afterward. They probably have to keep England under 425 to have a decent chance.

Regardless of England’s final total, there are three things on which to keep an eye tomorrow: first is Steyn and Philander. Neither looked at the peak of their game today and tomorrow should give a good indication of how much of that was just rust. The pitch is still flat, but they will have to improve. The second is Ravi Bopara. Anyone who reads this blog with regularity will already know that I do not rate him, but he has (another) chance to prove me not-entirely-right tomorrow. He had mixed fortunes against India in a similar situation at the Oval last summer, but he is less likely to be declared on this time. At Edgbaston, however, he made only seven after watching a long partnership. Lastly: England should have a chance to bowl at some point. South Africa will almost certainly be under some sort of scoreboard pressure when they come out and they have to bat with the same caution that Cook and Trott did.

England v South Africa preview

The most eagerly awaited Test series in a year. The most ridiculously shortened Test series since the last time South Africa played a major opponent. The winner of the series will finish as number one in the world, though if South Africa win by one Test they will be top by only 0.16 points. A draw will see England maintain their position at the top of the table, but by a reduced margin.

The teams are almost impossibly close on paper. The series will feature the two best bowling attacks in the world and arguably the two best bowlers in the world in Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson. Steyn has had the better career and Jimmy has a long way to go to catch him, but over the last few years they have been on level terms with Jimmy actually faring slightly better. Steyn will have the support of the also brilliant but somewhat overshadowed Morne Morkel as well Vernon Philander. It is the last of these who I think will be most interesting to watch. He had an incredible start to his Test career, becoming the second fastest all time to fifty wickets. He is yet to really have an ‘off’ Test. But he is also yet to face top quality opposition. Of his seven Tests, five have been against Sri Lanka or New Zealand and the other two were against an Australian side in a bit of disarray. That said, he still took 5-15 in the famous 47 all out and regardless of the strength of the opposition that is quite impressive. He has, however, not quite managed to replicate that form with Somerset in the Championship. In five matches he has taken 23 wickets at 21.34. No one would argue that is anything but good, however it must be viewed in the context of the incredibly bowling friendly conditions of the early season; most sides would have been in with a chance of victory if they scored 213. It is also, rather surprisingly, a third again higher than his Test average! It will thus be very interesting to see how he gets on.

For England, Jimmy is backed up by Stuart Broad and one of Tim Bresnan, Steven Finn or Graham Onions. Bresnan is the presumable choice, though Finn and Onions are good injury replacements and (although it is very unlikely) possible fourth seamers if England decide to go that route. It is the new ball attack of Broad and Anderson that will be England’s main weapon, however. Broad is actually almost as dangerous as Jimmy as he is now the bowler that everyone expected him to be from when he first came into the side. In the past twelve months has has played ten Tests, four of them on flat Asian wickets, and taken 54 wickets at an average under 19. It’s not quite what Philander managed to do, but it is close and it is far better than what Morkel has done in the same period of time (26 wickets in eight Tests at 29). How England handle the third seamer position will be an interesting to watch. Tim Bresnan had a shaky start to the summer, but finished the series against the West Indies well whilst Finn and Onions did not manage to use the innings that they got in the third Test to demand inclusion in this series. Bresnan also strengthens the batting and as I have said before I think it strengthens it so much that England should play five bowlers. Even without the bonus of his batting, however, Bresnan is a more than capable third seamer: he bowls quick, he bowls a ‘heavy ball’ and he can get the ball to reverse swing.

That’s how the seamers align and taken as groups there is almost nothing to choose between them. Over the last few years Anderson has matched Steyn, Philander has outdone Broad with the ball and Bresnan has outdone Morkel with both bat and ball. England probably have a slight advantage due to Philander’s inexperience. Where England have a large advantage, however, is in spin. South Africa will be bringing Imran Tahir to England. Whilst he is a considerable step up from Paul Harris, he is not a match for Graeme Swann. (It’s also a personal disappointment as I think the ‘team full of Rhodesians’ joke I would have made is funnier than the ‘team full of Pakistanis’ joke I will be making instead.) The group stats support the notion that England have an advantage, but a slight one: England’s team bowling average over the last two years is 26.52 as opposed to South Africa’s 28.74, whilst the teams are neck and neck in ‘notable’ scores. England have bowled their opponents out for under 200 eleven times in 24 matches in the past two years whilst conceding 400 or more four times. In the same time period, South Africa have played 13 Tests and bowled their opponent out for under 200 six times whilst conceding two scores over 400. Interestingly, in this time period neither team has lost when conceding 400 but have each one once after doing so.

So it’s advantage England by a nose in the comparison of bowling attacks, but each side have very good batsmen as well. South Africa have the formidable Grame Smith opening and boast Hashim Amla, AB de Villiers and Jacques Kallis farther down the order. The first three each average just short of fifty apiece and each over the course of fairly long Test careers. Kallis averages even higher, almost 57 in his career, but oddly has never fared well in England. In twelve Tests he only averages 29.30 with a solitary century. It will be interesting to see if he can, in what will likely be his last tour of England, turn those numbers around a bit. It will also be important for South Africa, who already have a couple of holes in their top and middle order. The injury to Boucher means that Jean-Paul Duminy will come into the side and it was already assumed that both Alviro Petersen and Jacques Rudolph will play. Both had decent series in New Zealand (the latter scoring 156 in the last Test), but apart from that none of those three have looked particularly imposing at Test level. Petersen and Rudolph have also both played in the County Championship this year and neither have been impressive. Petersen scored a big century, but it was against Glamorgan and his other ten innings yielded only ninety runs between them. Rudolph did slightly better, but for all his starts he only passed fifty once in ten innings. It also remains to be seen how AB de Villiers will react to taking the gloves. He has batted very well when keeping wicket in ODIs, but this will be the fourth time he has kept in Tests and in the first three matches he averaged only 22.

England, by contrast, have no real stars. Only Jonathan Trott averages over fifty and his average has been going steadily downward since he first established himself. However, England also have fewer weaknesses. The only batsman to average under forty is Ravi Bopara and that is offset somewhat by the fact that Tim Bresnan at number eight actually averages over forty. At the top of the order, Andrew Strauss has scored three first class centuries already this summer with his an unbeaten 127 in his most recent innings against Notts. Alastair Cook has lost the form that saw him dominate attacks last year, but he still had a decent series against the West Indies. Ian Bell has had a good summer, but as far as the middle order goes all the attention will be on Kevin Pietersen. Embroiled in controversy since retiring from pyjama cricket earlier this summer and making some rather questionable demands of the England management, he has nonetheless been in excellent form with the bat. Most recently was his jaw-dropping innings at Guildford where he treated a skilled Lancastrian attack as though they were a team of under-elevens. He will go into the South Africa series with a point to prove and whilst it could result in more rash shots for cheap dismissals, there is also every chance that it will drive him to have a huge series. KP is someone who has tended to perform when under personal pressure and saves his best for the big stage. This is a big stage and he is under pressure. South Africa will be well advised to get to him early in his innings.

England also have an advantage down the order. Whilst AB de Villiers is a better batsman overall than Prior, he is still a part time ‘keeper. Prior is much more reliable with the gloves and it remains to be seen which de Villiers will show up with the bat. But farther down is where England could really put some pressure on South Africa. England’s last four batsmen, ie: numbers eight through eleven, have a cumulative average of 101. The corresponding average for South Africa is only 58. That is a potential extra 43 runs in each innings for England, an entire extra batsman’s worth. The upshot for me is that South Africa will probably have to get an above average performance by some of their more unheralded batsmen or a very good series from someone like Smith. Even if Kallis shows his true class, I do not think South Africa will be able to get away with having any failing batsmen.

The series may well come down to little things. Neither side have had ideal preparations. England were playing ODIs, but at least winning. South Africa, meantime, did not look too impressive in their pair of tour matches and suffered the loss of Boucher in that time. Both captains are very defensive minded, especially Smith who has previously delayed declarations absurdly long. I don’t think either side will want to be in a position of having to force a victory; it will play against the natural tendency of both captains. This will favour England at first, as they only need a draw to retain the number one ranking, so this is something South Africa will want to negate early. And then there is the weather. So much time has been lost to rain in this summer both in the international and county matches. South Africa did not play the rain particularly well against New Zealand; Smith will need to take it into account better in England.

As for a prediction, the two sides are so close that it is very hard to say. The winner may simply be whichever side manages to have fewer poor days. I think a lot will come down to whether one player, probably a batsman given the skill of the attacks, can step up and dominate the series. For South Africa that may be Smith having a series like he did in 2003; for England it may be something special from KP or a captain’s series from an in-form Strauss. With the series being as short as it is, whatever numerical result is reached is unlikely to reflect the play itself (unless one side simply fails to show up of course). As outlined above, I think where there are edges to be had most of them go to England. With that and the lighter pressure on them, something with which South Africa notoriously struggle, I think England will win the series 2-0. I would say 2-1, but I don’t think the weather will co-operate enough to get three results. However it finishes, though, it should be a cracker and I cannot wait for it to start.

Why are we still talking about Bopara?

The England squad for the first Test against South Africa is set to be announced tomorrow morning at 09.30 BST. There is not much of note, England are untroubled by injury, and the only discussion is about whether Ravi Bopara will be included. The media seem to think it is a fait accompli that he will and I fear they may be right. The apparent reason for this is utterly absurd, however: it seems that Ravi Bopara will be given what will now be a fourth chance due to a combination on Jonny Bairstow’s failure (note that Bopara has three of those to Bairstow’s one) and Bopara’s good form in the ODIs.

The notion that ODI form should be a reason for Test selection is utterly maddening, yet it is seemingly very common. The England selectors seem to have overlooked the fact that there is no number six at the moment precisely because the first person they tried there, Eoin Morgan, failed at the Test level after excelling at ODIs! In fact, Morgan was picked almost purely on his ODI record; his first class record is distinctly average. The fact that he is not batting at six himself shows the folly of picking players on limited overs runs. It is all well and good to say that a player looks ‘assured’ or whatever adjective one prefers, but the fact is that the styles of batting are very different and ought to be incomparable. Just look at how England (and Cook and KP in particular) fared against Pakistan’s bowling in the Tests and ODIs in the UAE in January and February. They are different games.

The other argument for why Bopara ought to be picked is a more reasonable, but still flawed, one. It is that he has done well in the County Championship this season, which he has. He averages 66 from five matches with two hundreds. However, this must be balanced against his previous Test failures and the fact that he is playing against second division attacks this season. There are two players in the first division, and even Joe Root in D2, with a better average than Bopara and who have not yet had a chance at Test cricket. Nick Compton is the obvious one with his incredible start to the season and Rikki Clarke even averages 70. Slightly below Bopara, Joe Denly averages 57 for Middlesex. There is no reason why one should give a fourth chance to Bopara when there are better qualified candidates who have never had a single chance. In fact, there is little reason to even drop Bairstow. Morgan was given over a year to prove himself; it would be very harsh on the much more talented Bairstow to discard him after only three real innings.

If Bopara is selected, as seems very likely, I will hope he does well. I would like him to repay the selectors seemingly insane faith in him and prove me wrong. But I am not at all confident and I think it is very unfair on other players. We will have to see what happens starting on 19 July, but if Bopara fails again, this has to be his last chance.

Poor preparation

With now exactly two weeks before the start of the abbreviated series against South Africa, I have been thinking about scheduling again. Obviously I am cross and have been for some time that the series is only three matches. Even without questioning the ECB’s rationale in playing five ODIs against Australia (though it is a very foolish rationale) the scheduling is poor.

That the series against South Africa is too short is not in doubt. It is the number one side in the world playing the number two side with the winner getting the top spot. To play it only over three matches is lunacy; it ought to be at least four. What is maddening is that the schedule could have easily accommodated a full length Test series and the ECB’s desired ODIs. Even if there were no way to squeeze in seven Tests and 13 ODIs (and the only reason that there is not is because of the World T20 and even then it’s close) then the arrangement could have and should have been different. For one thing, there was no need for a third Test against the West Indies. Whilst no one could have predicted so far ahead of time that it would have been a washout anyway, almost everyone managed to predict that it was going to be a dead rubber. I am no fan of two Test series, but in this case it would have been very much the lesser of two evils. A far better option, however, would have been to simply reduce the number of ODIs being played against South Africa and the West Indies. We are playing a combined eight matches against them, it would have been very easy to cut out three and play a usual seven Test/ten ODI summer.

Those solutions assume we have to play those five ODIs against Australia this summer for the ECB to accomplish its goal of preparing England for the World Cup, but that is not even true. These ODIs are actually supposed to be more for Australia’s benefit than England’s; it is allowing them to prepare for the Champions Trophy in reciprocation for England playing in Australia ahead of the World Cup. But the Champions Trophy is next year and we are playing the normal Ashes related ODIs against Australia then anyway. Surely Australia would prepare better by simply having those ODIs moved in front of the Champions Trophy, just as England’s matches in Oz will immediately precede the World Cup. This seems like a solution that would not only allow us to play four (or five) Tests against South Africa like we ought to, but also to allow the ECB to get their desired pre-World Cup preparation and actually improve Australia’s pre-Champions Trophy preparation.

It is, of course, a bit late to be complaining about fixtures that were set over a year ago, but the reason I bring it up is because I think England may not only have robbed the fans of a good series, but also put themselves at a bit of a disadvantage by playing so much white ball cricket ahead of an important Test series. England will go into the first Test against South Africa with many of their players having played seven limited overs matches and no significant red ball cricket since the end of the second Test. Strauss at least will play a bit for Somerset and I am hoping Jimmy and KP (both of whom are missing some or all of the series against Oz) will play in the Surrey v Lancashire match at Guildford the week before the Test series starts, though I am not optimistic. It probably won’t be a massive problem for England, but it is a bit troubling especially given how good at preparation Flower and Strauss usually are. It is worth remembering that when England were playing warmup matches before the 2010/11 Ashes, Australia were playing ODIs against Sri Lanka. This was not the difference in the series, England were always going to be far too good for Australia, but it was another advantage given to England. With the series against South Africa looking like it may be a very close one and every difference magnified due to the shortness of the series, this is certainly an area where England should have done better.

Bopara is still not the answer

There has been a suggestion that Ravi Bopara has secured the number six spot in the Tests with his 117* against Yorkshire today. It was a good innings, Essex only made a total of 199, but it is still not a reason to pick him to play at six.

First off, it does not change Bopara’s terrible Test stats. As I have noted previously, Bopara’s batting average against teams other than the West Indies is a dismal 15. Going by the same criteria (ie, throwing out Tests against the West Indies) that average fits neatly between Jimmy Anderson’s 13 and Graeme Swann’s 18. That’s good enough for a specialist bowler, it is not good enough for someone who has one Test wicket for 212 runs. There is no reason to suspect that if we give him another chance now it will be any different from all the previous chances we have given him. He can get runs against the Windies, but we need to pick someone who will succeed against South Africa too. There is no reason to suspect that Bopara will do that.

It is important to remember that Bopara’s innings, whilst good, was in the second division. In their only other match, Yorkshire conceded over 500 in the first innings against Kent. One hundred seventeen is a good fightback when part of 199, but the fact is that it is an innings against a bowling attack that is not special. He played a good innings in difficult circumstances against a mediocre attack in the second division. That does not at all indicate a reversal of his absolutely terrible Test form.

That innings was not even the best in this round of matches. Chris Read played a much better innings for Nottinghamshire, his hundred was ten times the score of the next best batsman. It was out of a tally of 162 and it was in the first division. Also in the first division, Rikki Clarke scored 140 after coming in with Warwickshire 81-7. Darren Maddy also scored what was for me an incredibly frustrating century in that match and they have probably ensured their side cannot lose from a position where they looked very likely to lose. As I type this, Nick Compton has scored his second century of the season to go with his 99 in the first match of the year. He leads the first division in runs, average and balls faced by a huge amount and that is with the incredibly bowling friendly conditions around the country so far.

I am very much in favour of the selectors looking at runs in the County Championship, but Bopara has failed so often he must not be given any special preference over other batsmen and he has demonstrably not been the best of those batsmen. There remains no rational argument to pick Bopara.

Number one?

England have lost by 75 runs to Sri Lanka and thus need to win the next Test to stay number one in the world. I’ll mention what I think they need to do later/tomorrow, but right now I think there is a good question about whether England ‘should’ be number one or not. It’s something that has come up a few times on Twitter, albeit usually in the form of a snide remark by a South African/Australian/Indian. (Who, strangely, have not usually shown an actual desire to discuss the topic.) The obvious point is that England have lost four Tests in a row since officially becoming number one last August and in any sport it is very hard to do that and still justify being considered the best in the world. Even if England win the last Test, the question will remain after what has been a very poor winter and unless/until England convincingly win a series in the subcontinent there will certainly still be suggestions that England are not the true ‘number one’ side.

Cricket is already unique amongst international sport with its wide range of conditions and possible results, but it is also in a unique situation where the ‘number one’ question is more than usually pertinent. Cricket has had two dynasties that have stretched most of the past 30+ years: the West Indies and then Australia. I had already noticed (even last summer) that there were those who said that England could not be number one until they matched those two teams. That is patently absurd, of course. The fact that almost no team in any sport ever achieved that kind of domination is what made the West Indies and Australia so special. I don’t think most people would claim that modern teams have to match those two greats, but I do think their legacy runs deeper than is obvious. Most do not say that England have to establish worldwide dominance to be number one, but there are still suggestions that a number one side ‘should’ do certain things. (Win in all conditions being the usual one.) But that is rubbish too. The number one side, by definition, is simply the side that is better than all the other sides. Right now, no side (apparently) can win in all conditions, but we cannot simply have no number one side just as a domestic league cannot be without a table topper.

The question then is whether England are better than all other sides. There is not an obvious answer to that. The nearest, and probably only, competitor is South Africa and they have had problems too. South Africa have not won a series on the subcontinent since beating Pakistan in 2007. They have won only one series at home since the start of 2008, against Sri Lanka this year. England beat Sri Lanka at home too, plus India; Pakistan and Australia. On results one could not say that South Africa are better than England, but the recent ones make it very hard to say that South Africa are worse too. Officially, if England do not win the next Test our run of poor form will have been bad enough to go below South Africa. That’s fair enough, but I don’t think South Africans can feel hard done by if England win and stay at the top. (Just as they could not, or at least should not have, when they failed to beat New Zealand.) England don’t look like the best side in the world right now, but South Africa have hardly pushed for the title.

Luckily, the fixture list has been kind and the issue can be settled head-to-head this summer. Though the series is still too short.

Still number one!

There was no play possible due to rain on the fifth day at Dunedin, meaning that regardless of what happens in the last two Tests of the series England will still be number one in the world. A pretty strong argument could be made that we don’t deserve to be, but then a pretty strong argument could be made that South Africa don’t deserve to be either, so it’s probably fair to have it decided by a head to head series this summer. Or maybe I’m just biased (actually I definitely am that, but it doesn’t necessarily make me wrong) and looking for a justification for our clinging on to the top ranking. Either way England can still slip off the top spot before the upcoming series by failing to beat Sri Lanka in the upcoming series there, but that series won’t end until after the official 1 April cutoff date for the ICC prize money. The big series will still be the criminally short three Test affair this summer. I think few would argue with the winner of that being top of the table.