England win by 130 runs

Up until very recently, the only thing that would be remarkable about that scoreline in a Test match would be the absence of ‘an innings and’ but for England it is an unusually good result for an ODI. The selection wasn’t quite what I had predicted before the match. I had suggested that Dernbach would play instead of Bresnan on the back of the performances in the warmup match, but England played neither of them, instead opting for Jimmy Anderson. This surprised me (not at the time, as I was asleep, but when I got up) as I had thought Jimmy had rather fallen out of favour during the last World Cup. I’m actually quite happy just to see Jimmy rested during the limited overs matches and saved for Tests; the last thing we need is a bowler of his calibre picking up an injury due to an ODI on which he is unlikely to have much of an impact. Anderson is a better bowler overall than Dernbach, however, so the selection makes sense from that standpoint. Jimmy actually did not fare that well, however; he only got six overs and did not take a wicket. He also went at four an over, which is not bad for an ODI, but Pakistan’s overall rate was only 3.7.

Finn, of course, was the pick of the bowlers with his analysis of 10-1-34-4. Those four were not cheap wickets either, they were the top four batsmen in Pakistan’s order. He blew them away to leave Paksitan at one point 40-4 and it was always going to be a struggle from there. Credit should also go to Graeme Swann, for his 7-3-19-2. He actually was the sixth bowler used (Bopara got an over) but he was instrumental in keeping Pakistan tied down as England turned the screw. Once again the batting was not particularly good, but they did enough today. Cook led from the front, something at which he has got rather good at doing in ODIs. His 137 off 142 was enough to win him Man of the Match, with which it is hard to argue. Especially after England’s batting woes in the Tests it was a much needed innings. He scored seven more than the entire Pakistan team and more than the rest of his teammates combined, which says a lot about how important his innings was. He also scored at nearly a run a ball, which should help suppress suggestions that he and Trott should not play in the same team. Each have perfectly respectable strike rates.

It should be noted that as it stands this is little more than a ‘feel-good’ win for England. The batting was still heavily reliant on one player and Finn’s early burst effectively ended the match, allowing the rest to play with the pressure off. Pakistan did not bat particularly well (though they hardly excelled in the Tests either) and England can probably expect them to come back. For now at least, England have a slight upper hand, nothing more.

Pakistan v England review and player marks

There’s not much more to say about how England performed in this series. No batsman scored a hundred and only Matt Prior averaged over 30 in the series. England were not just poor with the bat, but historically awful. The only series of three or more matches in which England have averaged lower than the 19.06 they did in the UAE was the 1888 Ashes. From that perspective, it’s amazing to think that we definitely ought to have wont he second Test and maybe even the third. It’s hard to know which is more surprising: that the bowlers kept us in the match after the batsmen had failed so badly or that the batsmen threw away such good positions. I’ve compiled marks out of ten for each of the players:

Pakistan
Misbah-ul-Haq* – 7/10
It was only a mediocre series with the bat from the Pakistan captain, but such was the nature of the series that his average of 36 was still fifth highest. More importantly for Pakistan is that he led the side well. It didn’t seem to take a lot to beat England’s batsmen, but he did not give them very many openings with his bowling changes and field placings.

Mohammad Hafeez – 6/10
Only one score of note with the bat, 88 in the first match, but he made it into double figures each of his other innings as well. His main contribution was with the ball, spinning it early in the innings. He took five wickets at 16 apiece, including the wicket of Cook on the first morning that started the rot for England.

Taufeeq Umar – 3/10
Passed fifty in the first Test, but was dismissed cheaply by Swann and Anderson in the next two. Victim of some good bowling, but did not look assured and did not defend well.

Azhar Ali – 9/10
Overcame an indifferent start to the series to finish top of the averages thanks to a match winning 157 in the final Test. He also scored a crucial (and possibly also match winning) 68 in the second Test and showed considerable maturity throughout.

Younis Khan – 6/10
A high score of 127 in a series where only one other batsman made it to three figures would seem to require more than six points out of ten, but he only scored 66 runs in the other four innings in the series. His high score before that knock had been 37 in the opening Test, and that had been ignominiously ended when he was lbw to Jonathan Trott.

Asad Shafiq – 5/10
A very creditable series for a batsman from whom little was expected. He passed 40 in three of the five innings in which he batted, but had difficulty going on and his top score was only 58.

Adnan Akmal† – 4/10
In rating the latest Akmal’s performance it is important to compare him with other wicket-keepers, not just his infamous brother. He did a reasonable job with the gloves, but appealed every time the ball hit the pads. (Though I will concede that a lot of them were out.) Had a hilarious drop early in England’s third Test run chase, but it cost them little. Poor series with the bat, but better than most were expecting.

Abdur Rehman – 9/10
A fantastic series for the left arm spinner, he finished only behind Ajmal in the series wicket tally and was the main destroyer in England’s second and third Test collapses.

Umar Gul – 8/10
Very quietly had a brilliant series. All of the headlines were about England woes against spin and with the effectiveness of Ajmal and Rehman he only needed to bowl 74 overs in the series. In those 74 overs he took 11 wickets at 22.27 and with a strike rate second only to Ajmal.

Saeed Ajmal – 10/10
Came off a brilliant 2011 and could not have made a better start to 2012. England could not read his variations and never got over the mess he made of them in the first innings of the series. Bell in particular looked all at sea facing him. Deserved man of the series.

Aizaz Cheema- 1/10
Only played in the first and third Tests, but was hardly needed. Bowled only 27 overs and took one wicket for 70 runs. Scored 0* in each of his three innings with the bat.

Junaid Khan – 0/10
Sadly, never really showed up. His biggest contribution to the second Test was a terrible drop in the deep with Prior batting in the first innings. Took 0-33 off eight overs in the first innings, did not bowl in the second.

England
Andrew Strauss* – 6/10
Led from the front with a good 56 in the last Test, but that was the high point as he struggled to get onto the front foot the entire series. He used his bowlers to good effect and did a good job keeping spirits up when England were in the field.

Alastair Cook – 5/10
Could not replicate his form from the summer, though he came closest of any English batsman to score a century this series. His soft dismissal in the first innings of the first Test set the tone for the series and he fell cheaply to start the disastrous run chase in the second Test too.

Jonathan Trott – 5/10
Second in England’s batting averages, but needless to say he still had a poor series. Made a good 74 in the second Test, but had an untimely illness in the second and could not meaningfully contribute to the run chase.

Kevin Pietersen – 1/10
Not merely a poor series from KP, but an abysmal one. He threw his wicket away more often than not, his efforts in the second innings of the first Test deserving special criticism. He finally started to find some form in the third Test, but still could not master the trick of hitting the ball with the bat when defending.

Ian Bell – 1/10
Poor Ian. Only once did he look like he could pick the variations from Ajmal and when he did he was trapped by Gul instead. His dismissal in the third Test run chase was one of the worst one will ever see, the very picture of a batsman out of form. From a man who came into the series on the back of an imperious 200 against India, it was rather a shock.

Eoin Morgan – 1/10
Eoin Morgan was supposed to be the man who would play spin. Supposedly his unorthodox style and ability to score quickly and to all parts of the field were going to be invaluable against spin. Instead he consistently threw his wicket away to the spinners. Just for a change in the last Test he threw his wicket away to Gul instead, but the entire series clearly showed up a dearth of application.

Matt Prior† – 7/10
England’s best batsman, plus another good series with the gloves (though he did not have a huge amount to do behind the stumps). He started the series with an unbeaten 70 as England collapsed and finished it with an unbeaten 49. His form dipped in between, but he was one of only two batsmen to get into double figures in the second Test run chase.

Stuart Broad – 9/10
Put in an absolutely amazing effort in the series. He was the pick of the English bowlers with 13 wickets at just over 20 and put England into excellent positions in the second and third Tests. He was more than handy with the bat as well, averaging more than KP, Bell and Morgan and scoring more in one innings (58* in the first innings of the second Test) than Bell did in the series.

Graeme Swann – 8/10
Rather unexpectedly found himself as the second spinner when Monty returned to the side, but still performed admirably. He finished with 13 and an almost identical strike rate to Broad, but conceded about sixty more runs. As usual, he was most effective against left-handers

Jimmy Anderson – 8/10
Took a bit of a back seat to Broad, but certainly did not embarrass himself. He was very unlucky to end up with only nine wickets, but bowled a very tight, probing line throughout.

Monty Panesar – 9/10
England sprung a surprise by playing two spinners in Abu Dhabi, and Monty took the opportunity superbly. He took 6-62 in the second innings to set up what should have been a very straightforward run chase. He was the only English bowler to take five wickets in a match in the series and he did so twice, picking up 14 in all.

Chris Tremlett – 0/10
Only played in the first Test and only had a chance to bowl in the first innings. He took 0-53, never looked particularly threatening and was dropped in favour of Monty.

Despite the poor performance of England in the series, I would not make wholesale changes for Sri Lanka. It is worth remembering that we did come up against some very good bowlers in conditions which suited them. KP and Bell averaged over 70 and over 100 last year, respectively, so to suggest that they be dropped over one poor series is very, very harsh. Similarly, Andrew Strauss has not been in the best of form with the bat, but he is easily the best leader of the side. Cook showed in the ODIs in India that he is not ready for the captaincy yet, and I would certainly not want to entrust Broad with it as I would want some England to still have reviews left after the first over. In any case, Strauss was the best of the full time batsmen in the third Test.

A change I would make is that I would drop Morgan.He has shown in this series that he is not a Test batsman. That is not to say that he will never be one, but he was brought into the side on the back of limited overs performances and I think a season playing first class cricket will do his temperament no end of good. In his place I would play Tim Bresnan, assuming he is fit (which seems likely). Whilst it seems odd to suggest playing one fewer batsman after the struggles in the UAE, Bres has a Test batting average of 45. Not only is this very reasonable on its own, it is actually 15 runs higher than Morgan averages. It’s good enough that I would pick him as a batsman over Mogan and Bopara even if he did not bowl a single ball.

That is the only change I would make, however, the other batsmen have good enough records that they certainly deserve another chance against the weaker Sri Lankan bowling and Monty has easily done enough to stay in the starting XI. It’s been a poor series, but these players will be strongly motivated to put that behind them and play well in Sri Lanka.

Pakistan win by ten wickets

Today marks exactly 13 months since the end of the Perth test of the last Ashes series and England marked the occasion in an appropriate style. The first innings of this match was the first time we had been bowled out for under 200 since Perth and in a touching homage to the dual collapses of that match they only managed only 160 in the second innings here. Pakistan’s successful chase of 15 to win sealed England’s first defeat since that Perth Test as well.

As at Perth, the batsmen were the primary culprits in the defeat and today they were almost entirely culpable. The bowlers put in an admirable and impressive performance yesterday to keep the match within (theoretical) reach, but the batsmen threw it away completely. It was even the bowlers who avoided an innings defeat; Graeme Swann scored 39 and Jimmy Anderson had an unbeaten 15 to complement his 12 in the first innings. Graeme Swann actually scored more runs in the match than any of the top six batsmen and only one fewer than Matt Prior. Trott had a decent match too, he was unlucky to get out to a leg side strangle in the first innings, but looked composed for his 49 in the second. That said, he could have and probably should have stuck around to anchor an English resistance but got skittish with his half century looming and played an ill-disciplined shot outside off and was caught behind.

There may have been other victims of ill-fortune in the innings, Cook misplayed a hook for what seems like the first time in his career and I will have more on Strauss later, but by and large they have very little to excuse them. KP in particular needs to have someone take him by the collar and shout at him for a bit, or whatever it takes to make him realise the value of shot selection. His shot today was absolutely inexcusable; with England in trouble on 25-2 he came in and played a hook on nought and top edged the ball straight to the man at deep square leg. The fieldsman had been placed there for exactly that purpose in a ploy so transparent even a premiership footballer would have seen through it, but KP either missed it (very possible) or simply assumed he could beat it (also very possible). Either way it was one of the most stupid and irresponsible shots you will see, only Brad Haddin could hope to match it.

One of the consequences of the top order failure was that Eoin Morgan was given the chance to redeem himself for letting the side down in the first innings. Instead he played the exact same type of innings; he got in, looked settled and promising, then got out tamely. It is a continuation of a common theme; if the top five score well and put the side in a good position, Morgan can take the game away. When they fail, however, Morgan seems incapable of rescuing the side. Fortunately for Morgan and England the top order succeed a lot more often than they fail, but it does call into question the wisdom of having a batsman at number six who only scores runs when they are not needed. It is a very similar criticism to that which was levelled at Ian Bell for many years, but it wasn’t an unfounded criticism then and it isn’t now either. Bell worked on his temperament and is now one of England’s best batsmen. Morgan must do the same; right now he does not look like a Test calibre batsman. He must also do it quickly, as England have a very talented Lions squad and may not persist with Morgan for as long as they did with Bell.

I mentioned Strauss earlier; he was at the centre of a DRS controversy just before lunch. With England and Strauss each on six he tried to turn one down the leg side and was given out caught behind. Strauss reviewed it and the decision was upheld despite HotSpot showing nothing. Strauss may very well have been out, there was a noise and he took a bit of time in reviewing it, but that did not stop the predictable criticism of the DRS. The fact that Pakistan’s Saeed Ajmal had been similarly given out despite the review earlier in the day added fuel to the debate with many labelling it as evidence against the DRS. Except it was no such thing, of course. Both batsmen had been given out by the on field umpire, Billy Bowden in both cases; the DRS made no difference. Without the DRS they would both still have been given out, fairly or otherwise. If the decisions were incorrect (which is not at all clear, especially for Strauss) then the fault is with the umpire who made the decision and it makes no sense to use that as an argument for why we should not have a review system. Needless to say this did not stop people from claiming that the DRS gave Strauss out.

All the DRS and batting commotion aside, we are left with the fact that England are now 0-1 down with two Tests left. The next one will be at Abu Dhabi before they return to Dubai for the third. The worry for England will be that they will be tailored for draws, as we saw in the Windies in 2009. Fortunately, England are resilient; we saw that clearly yesterday, if not so much today. Before today England had only lost four Tests since Kingston 2009 and each time they won the next one emphatically. The only caveat to that is the innings defeat at Jo’burg in 2010 which was the last in the series. England followed that defeat with six consecutive wins, but the first four were against Bangladesh. England will hope that the comparisons with Perth continue, however; they followed that defeat with three consecutive innings victories. These are not just meaningless filler stats. England respond well to defeat. They are masters at analysing flaws and working to correct them. That is not a guarantee of success in Abu Dhabi, of course, but only someone who has not watched any cricket in the past three years would automatically write England off.