England win by five wickets

I got the margin of victory off by one wicket. And that wicket fell with two runs to win. I’m kind of annoyed about that, but otherwise my thought last night that it would be tricky for England at first but ultimately comfortable was fairly accurate. Cook and Bell progressed serenely in a partnership of 132 for the fifth wicket that all but won England the match.

It was actually a pretty good, one might almost say ‘standard’, Test. Not particularly close, but not a blowout and a couple of sessions of negative bowling by England aside there was always something to watch. I don’t think either side will be too happy with the Test, however. England will be happy to have won, but did not ever seem to really play as well as they should and have a lot on which to work before the Trent Bridge Test on Friday. The West Indies overperformed, but if one had not expected them to be hammered one would probably not say they played particularly well, though it is a mark of how much they overperformed that one would also not say they played particularly poorly and certainly played as well as any average side would be expected to. They will also be disappointed to have lost.

As mentioned on a previous day, England’s bowling in this Test was at best average and at worst poor. Even with the standard caveats of good batting by Chanderpaul; a flat pitch and not a lot of swing, one would have to say that England need to improve. Jimmy was certainly off his best, despite bowling better than his figures suggested. Broad bowled well, but was rather flattered by his figures. Bresnan was simply poor and Swann did not get a chance to feature heavily, but managed to get the prize wicket of Chanderpaul as well as the important one of Bravo in the second innings. I think they will improve, however. One of the problems was that, as far as I know, none of them had more than one or two county matches in which to prepare. I think Jimmy especially needs more than the one match he got to really find his rhythm for the summer. The same, to a lesser extent, applies to Broad as well and although he was good in this Test I think he will be better in the next one. I think, however, that Bresnan needs some more time with Yorkshire. He has not looked quite the same since he returned from injury and I think he just needs more time in the middle with bat and ball. We have enough bowling depth to play Finn and/or Onions for the rest of this series. In hindsight (and this is not meant as a criticism because it was not as clear before the match) Onions should have played in this Test where the conditions would have been very well suited to him.

The West Indies need to work on their running between the wickets. A lot. They lost wickets in both innings to horrible mix-ups and could (arguably should) have had the Chanderpaul-Samuels partnership broken by one in the second innings. As important as that is, they also need to improve their batting in general. As mentioned above their performance was not in any way poor, but that does not mean that it does not need improvement. Especially in the first innings they still lost wickets to injudicious shots and the dismissal of Sammy in the second is almost cause enough to strip him of the captaincy. They did not collapse the way they could have (and did at home) and now their task is to build on that and improve. In the field they need to work on sustaining pressure. I never thought they were going to win today, but they did not put up much of a fight after dismissing KP. Even before then the field setting was odd (a problem we saw in Australia too) and there were always runs on offer. Despite losing two early wickets and being 57-4 (though one of those was a nightwatchman), England scored 121 runs in the morning session. It was a rate one would normally associate with well set batsman going effortlessly, not fighting through a difficult first hour. There was some poor bowling, only Roach was going really well, but a lot of very poor captaincy from Sammy. The field placing was terrible and the decision to bring the part time spinner on to bowl to Ian Bell was baffling.

Looking ahead to Trent Bridge, I think both teams ought to make changes. England should bring in one of Finn or Onions for Bresnan. Right now I would lean toward Finn, but that is without seeing the conditions. If it is a relatively quick wicket then I would certainly prefer Finn’s pace and bounce, though if it is slow then Onions’ ability to bowl at the stumps and move the ball in the air might be preferable. That should be the only change; whilst Bairstow only made 16, he did so comfortably and deserves another go. The West Indies must bring in a proper spinner this time. Samuels might buy a couple of wickets, but we already saw Bell take him apart. Shillingford will presumably replace one of the quicks and I suspect it will be Gabriel, as promising as the debutant looked. It is worth noting, however, that Roach appeared to have a slight ankle problem. There is also an outside chance that Edwards will be dropped after being wayward once again. It would be a gamble to ask Gabriel to lead the attack, however. The bowler who probably should be replaced is Sammy, but as the captain that will not happen.

The ball will almost certainly swing more at Trent Bridge than it did at Lord’s and it will be interesting to see if the West Indies can continue their fight. I may have mentioned it already, but in 2007 the West Indies batted very well at Lord’s before rain intervened. They then went to Headingley and lost by an innings and 283 runs, though there were some extenuating circumstances. I think the next Test will be more of a challenge for them than this one was; England will have likely improved and the conditions will be tougher. Weather permitting, England can expect to win. Whether the West Indies can make another good Test of it will tell us a lot about the nature of their improvement.

England v West Indies preview

The West Indies come to England fresh from a disappointing 0-2 defeat at home to Australia. They only performed passably well even at the best of times during that series and were frequently dire. Despite England’s recent woes in the subcontinent and similar regions, they are a side who have lost only two Tests at home since the start of 2009 and are still number one in the world. It is fair to say that if the Windies are going to come close in this series, they will have to perform far, far better than they did at home.

History, or at least recent history, is against them. They have not won an overseas Test somewhere other than Bangladesh since the Boxing Day Test in South Africa in 2007. The last time they won a Test in England was at Edgbaston in 2000; since then they have lost 12 and only managed to draw two. Their coach, Ottis Gibson, said that his hope for the Lord’s Test was to take it into a fifth day this time. This was in reference to their defeat inside three days at the home of cricket in 2009. That hope may be a bit optimistic. They have selected a squad which on paper appears to be slightly weaker than the one which lost to Australia and they have started the tour by losing to the Lions by ten wickets. In truth, they did well to make it that close. The Lions, boasting England’s third choice bowling attack, bowled the West Indies out for 147 in the first innings and went on to post a lead of 196. The Windies did come back a bit in the second innings, however.

Their performance against the Lions shows the fact that their batting almost begins and ends with Shivnarine Chanderpaul. He is a true great, but we have already seen that one great cannot carry a poor side. The rest of them have talent, and we saw some of that in the first innings of the first Test against Australia, but they are also very prone to give their wickets away (as we saw in the rest of that series). The West Indies will be facing arguably the best pace attack in the world in very friendly conditions. It is a far cry from the flat pitches and weak attacks on the subcontinent, or even the turning ones pitches from the recent series in the Caribbean. They occasionally performed well in those places, but even then were prone to collapses. Even if they were to cut out all the mistakes that have plagued them recently I think they will find the going very difficult and they are up against an attack that thrives on coaxing batsmen into errors. Last year India failed to pass 300 in four Tests; the Windies have only three and I would not be at all surprised to see the same result.

They will clearly need something from their bowlers. Unfortunately, their best performers at home were probably the spinners and despite England’s struggles against turn over the winter, they are unlikely to be more than a supplement in England. A lot will rest on their pace attack. Again there is some talent, but of what would appear to be their first choice attack (Fidel Edwards, Kemar Roach and Darren Sammy) only Roach has a bowling average under 30. They may cause some damage in friendly conditions, but these are home conditions for England’s batsmen and they put a pair of similar attacks to the sword last summer. Given that their batsmen already liable to give them a mountain to climb, I think it will be a tough ask for the West Indies bowlers.

England are strong favourites, but do go in under a bit of pressure after the disappointing winter. There is a strong sense that nothing less than three emphatic wins will do. As mentioned above, however, they have lost only twice at home in twenty Tests under Strauss and Flower. (They’ve won 14 of those Tests.) Most of the side have scored runs in the Championship already (no easy feat) with Cook the only exception and he has not had a lot of opportunities. As already mentioned, Bairstow looks like he will be batting at six. After the struggles of the winter, the batsmen do seem to have found some form and should present a formidable opposition to the Windies. The biggest hope will be that Strauss can get some big runs and ease the (insane) questions about his place in the side. He has a pair of decent scores in the Championship already, including an unbeaten 43 in Middlesex’s last match, and I do not see any reason why he could not push on from there.

England will probably be playing either Finn or Bresnan as a third seamer, though Onions is also in the squad. Whoever is picked will have an excellent opportunity to nail down the spot for the series against South Africa, but that’s assuming whoever it is (I’m guessing Finn) gets much of a bowl. Jimmy Anderson finished the series in Sri Lanka looking like the best bowler in the world and Stuart Broad had been in excellent form in the UAE before picking up an injury. They have both, especially Jimmy, shown themselves to be formidable weapons in all conditions and in May in England against a side prone to collapse I expect them to take bags of wickets. Swann will also be useful, he always is, but I doubt he will have an opportunity to do much more than chip in with a few wickets.

I can’t see the West Indies winning a Test. I said before the Australia series that I thought they had a chance to steal one from that series, but they could not and England are a much different proposition. I’ve already mentioned that at Lord’s in 2009 they lost before stumps on the third day. At Durham in 2007 the entire first day and quite a bit of the second day was lost to rain, but England still won comfortably. England are now a much better side than they were in either 2007 or 2009, whilst the Windies are arguably worse. Unless it rains non-stop for three days during one of the Tests I can see no other result than a 3-0 whitewash for England.

LV=CC week five roundup

There was more rain in the LV=CC this week, but not as bad as it was last week and we did have more results than draws this time. (Though this was partly due to a contrived match at Lord’s.

Nottinghamshire beat Lancashire by 185 runs
Warwickshire beat Durham by nine wickets
Middlesex beat Worcestershire by 132 runs
Derbyshire drew with Gloucestershire
Glamorgan drew with Essex
Northamptonshire beat Hampshire by 117 runs
Yorkshire beat Leicestershire by an innings and 22 runs

Of note is that now all of Durham, Lancashire, Worcestershire and Glamorgan have still not won a match this season. Yorkshire’s win at Scarborough was their first of the Championship. Meantime, Warwicks and Notts are each yet to lose a match despite some close finishes for the former and the latter having just a single batting point this season. It keeps Warwickshire on top of the D1 table by four points over Notts, having played one fewer match. Derbys have also done enough in their draw to stay at the summit of D2.

As mentioned above, one of the most notable match of the round was probably at Lord’s where Worcestershire declared before the last day on 45-2 and Middlesex forfeited their second innings. It set up a chase of 283 on the last day, but Worcs did not get near it. It was still an example of good attacking thinking, however. The points allocation system is (rightly, I think) set up to reward victories highly and almost discount draws. Worcs correctly assessed that it was worth going for a win and we got an exciting finish out of a match that looked dead.

This was also the week in which all of the England players were cleared to appear for their counties. Ian Bell rather dramatically returned to form for Warwickshire, scoring 120 after coming in with the Bears 15-3. He this time outshone his England colleague Trott, who could only make two. As Warwickshire do not play next week, Bell will appear for the Lions to get some more time in the middle. Jimmy Anderson bruised his hand and come down with a stomach ailment, but still managed to take 5-82 in Notts’ second innings. In the other dressing room for that match, Swann and Broad took 3-26 & 2-30 and 0-60 & 3-67 respectively. Swann and Anderson each bowled the other in the match as well. Andrew Strauss scored a pretty good 49 in tricky conditions at Lord’s. It was not chanceless, but it was fairly quick and pretty fluent for the conditions. It should ease the silly media speculation about him, however. Steven Finn did not play a large role on the final day, but did take 2-30. For Essex, Alastair Cook’s return to the middle did not last long, as he made only nine and five. Jonny Bairstow made his case to bat at six against the Windies with 182 in Yorkshire’s innings victory, whilst Tim Bresnan took 1-37 and 1-57.

Many of the best performances were not from the England players, or even those on the fringes of the side, however. Andre Adams completely turned the match at Old Trafford with his first innings 7-32 (a career best) and Warwickshire’s Keith Barker took 5-33 in the first innings and 5-37 in the second to ensure that Durham were only briefly in the match. Strauss got the most publicity in Middlesex’s first innings, but it was Joe Denly who put them in a winning position with his unbeaten 134 whilst Alan Richardson tried in vain to restrict the hosts with his 5-89. Derbyshire captain Wayne Madsen hit a century and Tony Palladino took 5-47 as Gloucestershire were forced to follow-on at Derby, but Kane Williamson stepped up for the visitors with 128 (of 409-4) as they secured the draw. Cook failed for Essex, but Alviro Petersen, his South African counterpart, did not and scored 145 at Cardiff. Huw Waters responded for the hosts with 5-47 to restrict Essex in the second innings as the match was drawn. David Willey put in a possibly match-winning effort with the ball for Northants, taking 5-39 in the final innings as Hants could not get close to their target. Finally, Leicestershire had a pair of excellent performances in vain at Scarborough. Wayne White took 5-90 in the first innings and Matthew Boyce scored 122 as Leicestershire tried to make Yorkshire bat again.

Australian fitness

Theoretically, Australia have bowling ‘in depth’. Which is good for them, because they are having a terrible time keeping any of their first choice quicks fit. In a best case scenario, they will have to choose three (usually) of James Pattinson, Pat Cummins, Peter Siddle, Ryan Harris and Ben Hilfenhaus. The problem for them is that it does not look like it will ever be a best case scenario. Cummins played one Test before injuring himself and has now missed the next eight. Pattinson played four Tests before being injured and missing the next three. Harris is so fragile that he has been omitted from the current Test purely as a precaution. With respect to Peter Siddle, there has been a lot of suggestion that Cummins, Pattinson and Harris are Australia’s three best bowlers. (Though I would dispute Cummins, and to a lesser extent Pattinson, on the ground that they have not played in enough Tests to properly establish their credentials.) They have to improve their fitness if they are to compete against the best sides again.

Compare the Australian situation to that of England: Jimmy Anderson has missed one Test (for any reason) since being rested for the tour of Bangladesh two years ago. There is no current consensus about the identity of the third seamer, but Steven Finn is yet to be ruled out through injury and Tim Bresnan has only been unavailable for three Tests out of the 17 since the start of the last Ashes. Only Stuart Broad has had notable injury problems, but even he has only missed four of the aforementioned 17 Tests.

The question of why Australia have such injury concerns is certainly an interesting one. I partly suspect that, slightly counter-intuitively, they play too little cricket, or at least too little first class and Test cricket. They played only three Tests in the ten months between the Ashes and the series in South Africa and their domestic teams play only ten matches in a season. It may be that when they do play they are simply not prepared for the more densely packed Tests seen in modern schedules. Cricket Australia need to find out the reason though. Australia already only have an average, or ever so slightly above, bowling attack. They can get by with playing their reserve bowlers against teams as prone to self destruction as India and the West Indies, they will not be able to do so against the better sides.

Colombo, day two

This was the day for which we have waited all winter. England dominated it pretty much from the word go and in another situation would probably be well on top. The conditions required scoring slower than usual, which England duly did. It means that they are not as well positioned as they might have been if they were at home, but are as well placed as they could ask to be here.

England started the day still needing four wickets and went after them patiently. It meant that I started to hear some hand-wringing as half an hour elapsed with no wickets, but it always looked like a case where one wold bring four and that is exactly what happened. The batsmen eventually tried to break the shackles and Strauss had the men set perfectly for it. His clever captaincy was mostly ignored, or course. Swann ended up with four wickets having bowled very well to get them. Jimmy ended up stuck on just the three he got yesterday morning, though he deserved rather more. It’s something that I need to look up, but it seems that Jimmy fairly often takes a few top-order wickets but only finishes with three or four as someone else cleans up the tail. Nothing wrong with that, of course, as long as the wickets are taken.

The highlight of the day was that England finally remembered how to bat. It won’t make the highlight reel because this was old-fashioned batting. Strauss and Cook kept out the good ones and tried to rotate the strike off worse ones. The run rate was only two and a bit per over, but that was what England needed. The runs did come, Strauss and Cook looked progressively more and more comfortable and Sri Lanka looked like they did not quite no what to do. The entire afternoon session passed without a wicket falling. It was precisely what England needed to do and even when Strauss departed in the last hour for a very well played 61, Trott picked up right where he left off. England finished on 154-1, trailing by only 121.

There is still a lot to do, of course. England are supremely well placed, but another collapse could still undo all that. We saw that happen in the first innings at Abu Dhabi, though the big partnership there was for the second wicket. If Cook and Trott can go the way they did there, after a big first wicket stand this time, then KP might not even come in until the scores are almost level. A collapse then might be too late for Sri Lanka, so they know that they have to get an early wicket tomorrow. It sounds surprising after all that has happened this winter, but right now the only one of the top five not to have scored some runs is KP. Even if he and Patel fail, England have enough lower order batting (Prior, Bresnan, Swann) to get a big lead if they’re only a few behind when Bell comes in. England have to go for big runs. It is very optimistic, but until there is a collapse England have to try to only bat once. They cannot try to up the rate, however, keep going as they are and accumulate. The plan will be to grind out the runs and declare around 500 before tea on the fourth day. Even if there is a bit of a collapse, if they stay sensible 400 is still possible. Or England could lose three wickets before lunch tomorrow and have to rely on Swann to get the lead up to fifty. That’s still possible too.

Colombo, day one

This was England’s day. It did not get off to a good start, Strauss lost the toss for the fourth consecutive time and Sri Lanka went in to bat. Strauss’ inability to correctly predict the path of a coin remains the number one reason why he should be sacked.

After that, however, it was eerily similar to the Galle Test, but a bit better for England this time. Once again the first three wickets fell cheaply, this time all to Jimmy Anderson. And once again Jayawardene scored an excellent century as he and Samaraweera consolidated, but this time England managed to get Jayawardene out. Swann trapped him lbw in the 80th over, plus Finn got Prasana Jayawardene before stumps and England restricted Sri Lanka’s scoring rate all day. England might have had loftier hopes after reducing Sri Lanka to 30-3, but 238-6 at stumps is still a good position after losing the toss. With Prasana out, Angelo Mathews is the last recognised batsman and England will be able to target him with a newish ball tomorrow morning.

Credit must go to James Anderson again. He bowled a fantastic spell with the new ball yet again and once again dismissed Kumar Sangakkara first ball. He did not get the hat trick, but he did get Thirimanne not long after. Those three wickets were not just reward for his efforts though. He also bowled one of the best spells one will ever see with a 60 over old ball, getting it to reverse both ways and comfortably beating the batsman time and time again. How he did not get a wicket is beyond me, he appeared to have it on a string. The consistency with which Jimmy has bowled over the past two years is incredible and he seems to be getting better. I don’t think there is any bowler in the world right now, Steyn included, who could have bowled the way Jimmy did today and he has performing at that level on very unhelpful pitches all winter. In the past two years now he has taken 101 wickets in 22 Tests (4.6 wk/Test) at an average of 22.83 and ten of those have been in unhelpful conditions. It’s an incredible return and I think Jimmy deserves at least equal mention with Steyn right now.

There was also some controversy when Samaraweera appeared to glove a ball from Finn to short leg on 36. England were convinced that it was out, but the umpire did not give it and it stayed with his call on review. There were two clear noises on the replay, however, and there was just as much evidence that he had hit it as the incident with Cook in the last Test. This time it was not overturned, however and I think England can justifiably feel hard done by. It was a poor decision on-field and brutally inconsistent by the third umpire. I will also bring up the point I did with Cook’s dismissal: the batsman should have walked. He clearly hit it and standing his ground was an act of deliberate dishonesty. For me it is in the same league as claiming a low catch and it should come under similar criticism. For Samaraweera and Cook to stay at the crease was disgraceful. Cook at least was given out but the only bit of justice given to Samaraweera was a nasty blow to the head two overs later. If he’d walked he would have avoided that.

The match is well set up for tomorrow’s play, England took a pair of important late wickets and need to make the new ball count again tomorrow morning. The big wicket is now that of Mathews, he has not played cricket for a while due to injury and it will be interesting to see how he starts tomorrow. If Jimmy and Finn can be as on-the-money as they were today, they have an opportunity to put England in a great position. After that, it will all be down to the batsmen again.

Sri Lanka win by 75 runs

The month and scenery changed, but this Test was a familiar tale for England: A frustrating and avoidable defeat. This time was all the more galling (no pun intended) for coming against a demonstrably weaker side. When England collapsed against Pakistan they had the excuse that they were up against a very good bowling unit, not so in Galle. Herath took what may have been the luckiest Test 12-fer in history (though the last one was taken by Jason Krejza, so maybe not) as the batsmen repeatedly gifted him their wickets. Of the seven recognised batsmen (ie, Strauss – Patel), nine of the 14 wickets to fall in both innings were needless. Even granting Patel leniency on debut and accepting the inevitability of the occasional batsman error, one would still call six of the 12 wickets inexcusable. Of those, two were to misplayed sweeps shots and three were to needless charges down the wicket (and remember, I am not including Broad through Monty in that). It is fair to say that without those errors, England would have won. Herath is not a 12-fer bowler without a lot of help, and in this match he picked up three wickets from stupid shots, three tail-end wickets and the debutant twice. The other four were at least reasonable, but four wickets for a subcontinent spinner is nothing special. But that’s about right, because it wasn’t a special performance. He was not only outbowled bowled by Swann, but even Randiv was getting more bounce and turn. It’s fair to say that Herath was the third best spinner in the match, but England made him look like Shane Bloody Warne. It’s frustrating, annoying and the same thing they did in the UAE. They should have learnt and they did not.

The bowlers were once again very good, but they did not cover themselves in glory the way they did in the UAE. Jimmy Anderson’s five wicket haul in the first innings was excellent, starting as it did by reducing Sri Lanka to 11-2 and removing the very dangerous Sangakkara first ball. He also produced a pair of fantastic deliveries to finish the innings on the second day, though by then it was later than England would have liked. Graeme Swann certainly deserved more for his efforts. Six wickets in the second innings, including Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Samaraweera (cumulative average: 159.12) for only 55 between them. He had Sri Lanka 127-8 in the second innings and gave England a chance to win. He also batted in a cap in both innings. It’s a small thing, but it does not happen nearly often enough and it is very, very cool when it does. Between all that, I think it would have been fair to have given Swann MotM.

The bowling unit as a whole, however, was not quite incisive enough and Strauss had a bit of a shocker with the captaincy. The biggest problem for England was probably the selection, we played two seamers and three spinners. The notion was presumably that the seamers would not be effective on the slow surface, but Anderson and Broad put the lie to that in the first innings. Neither Monty nor Patel looked incisive, meantime, and all of their wickets were those of tail-enders. This lack of firepower cost England badly as the Sri Lankan tail added valuable, and ultimately match winning, runs in both innings. The second innings was the more frustrating. This time, Sri Lanka did not have an established batsman to guide the tail and yet the last two wickets put on 87 runs. England only lost by 75, so it is no exaggeration to say that those cost England the match. Strauss did not captain well in that time. To be fair to him, he was handicapped by only having two wicket taking options: Patel and Panesar looked unlikely to bowl anyone out and Broad was half fit. Strauss could not keep Swann and Jimmy on for the entire session and Sri Lanka profited. At the same time, however, he did not attack enough. England needed to wickets to have a great chance of winning, but he put men back and allowed easy singles. The notion was to get the ‘rabbit’ on strike, but this seldom seems to work and it did not come close to doing so here. This is not the first time England have changed tactics to tail-enders and I find it baffling every time. The original tactics had reduced the Sri Lanka to 127-8 and got some of the best batsmen in the world out cheaply. Why alter that to a number ten? In the first innings, Jimmy bowled Welegedara with an unplayable offcutter. The batsman had no chance. Why this was not the plan in the second innings is beyond me.

England could have, and should have, won this match. There is still some hope, but they must cut out the errors before the next Test. Having watched this side at their best we know this is possible, but one would think it would have already happened. I have already written about how England can improve their player selection, but the biggest problem is shot selection. As long as they are playing rash shots, like sweeps, they will struggle.

Galle, day one

It should have been England’s day. Any time one loses the toss and promptly reduces one’s opponent to 15-3 should be a good day. And England did just that. Despite announcing that Samit Patel would play, but at number seven (I expected either Patel at six or Bresnan at seven, but not this) and then losing the toss and having to bowl, they took three quick wickets and put Sri Lanka under pressure. England let it slip badly at the end though. They seemed to just tire out. It was very hot in Galle, so there’s every chance that they did just that, but it was still disappointing and I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect better. England had a great opportunity to put their foot on the throat of Sri Lanka, but instead the home side finished on 289-8 and if England are in front at all, it is only just barely.

Sri Lanka actually provided most of the action today. England bowled pretty much as they always do at the start of the day: pretty tight, mostly outside off, full and swinging a bit. And this got wickets in the way it often does: the batsmen were impatient and played at balls they ought to have left. Sangakkara played a particularly unexpected flash outside off to his first ball, and Dilshan’s innings was Sehwag-esque in it’s horror. It was good bowling by England, but the fact that Sri Lanka had mostly thrown their wickets away was evident and Mahela Jayawardene and Thilan Samaraweera knuckled down. They played sensibly and Broad and Anderson could not bowl long spells in the heat.

This was where I think the flaws of England’s selection started to show. There’s a long way to go in the match, of course, and we have not seen Patel’s batting yet, but I do not think we needed three spinners. We started the match with the new ball swinging a bit and troubling the batsmen, but we had to bring the seamers off quickly in the heat and bring on spin. Panesar was good, but he rarely looked incisive, merely containing. Swann was the opposite: he bowled some magic balls and was unlucky not to get a wicket, but he also went at a considerable rate. Neither were what we needed with Sri Lanka at 30-3, we needed someone like Tim Bresnan or Steven Finn. I would have picked Bresnan to play and we know that he can pitch the ball up and nip it about. That is what was causing the batsmen problems, but instead we had to waste some of the new ball by bowling spin. Of course, Patel did take two wickets. The first one was a rank gift (most of the Sri Lankan wickets were), but the second one was a better bit of bowling. It was later in the day, after Herath had played very defensively against Swann and Panesar he tried to get some runs off Patel and was lbw missing a sweep. The fact that neither Monty or Swann got a wicket will make it look like a very good selection, but at least so far I think that is deceiving.

Still, things went well for England for most of the day. After that early burst, Sri Lanka needed a giant partnership to re-establish control of the match and there did not seem to be one forthcoming. All of their batsmen after Sangakkara made starts if not more, but Chandimal’s 27 was the highest. England never had a stranglehold on the match like they briefly did at the beginning, but they were comfortably on top and with Sri Lanka on 191-7 it looked like it would be a very good day. This was roughly when everything started to fall apart. Jimmy Anderson missed what should have been a comfortable caught and bowled when Jayawardene was on 90 and the Sri Lankan captain hit the next ball for six. Later Monty dropped him twice in successive overs. The first drop was pardonable, the ball clearly went right into the sun and Monty never really saw it. The second was horrendous though. It went straight up and despite having ample time to prepare he tried to change his catching position (from the so-called ‘English’ stance with the fingers pointed away from the body to the so-called ‘Australian’ style of fingers pointed back)* at the last second and shelled it.

Jayawardene played very, very well of course. After getting to his century he seemed determined to blast Sri Lanka to the highest score he could. He rotated the strike brilliantly to protect Herath and picked the gaps with an ease that seemed almost unfair. He did offer those two chances to the second new ball, but even by then England were already reeling a bit. He did fantastically well all afternoon to steady the ship and at the end he came very close to getting Sri Lanka back on level terms. It was a true captain’s innings and he deserves a massive amount of praise.

Anderson’s third wicket, a lovely inswinger to trap Other Jayawardene lbw, was the 252nd of his career. Which may seem like an odd one to mark (250 being the logical choice) but this was significant as it brings him level with the great Brian Statham for career wickets. Often I brush this off as a result of the large number of Tests played in this era, but Anderson has actually achieved this in three fewer Tests than Statham. (Though Statham does have the better average.) This is even more noteworthy considering the long lean patch Jimmy had earlier in his career. It was already clear that Jimmy was one of the best bowlers in the world right now, but given the fact that he has plenty of time left in his career he may be remembered as one of the best English bowlers of all time.

It’s always a bit hard to know where a match stands after the first day of the series (unless the batting side is skittled for 100, which is usually pretty clear) and with England batting second this is not an exception. If one offered England 289-8 immediately after losing the toss they would have accepted. If one made the same offer after Sri Lanka were reduced to 15-3, I expect they would have declined. Tomorrow will mostly be a day for England’s batting. The pith is flat and Sri Lanka’s attack is not particularly threatening and a big score should be on the cards. There is turn, however, and if their mental daemons resurface Sri Lanka could find themselves very well placed. England have lost the chance to bat with the pressure off, however, and Strauss and Cook must get the innings off to a good start. I expect they will still be batting at stumps, whether both on 150* or following-on I’m not sure, however.

*This is actually one of the few technical aspects of cricket of which I actually have some knowledge and I have always preferred having the fingers point backward. By getting one’s head under the ball, it’s apparent motion becomes almost non-existent and it is much easier to track the ball into the hands. The alternative method – fingers out, catching near the stomach – means that one has to follow the ball and make any last minute corrections as it passes in front of one’s face at upwards of 30m/s. That is rather harder, at least for a very high catch.

England win by 20 runs

Only an ODI could be this close and still this dull. Pakistan needed 251 to win and yet never seemed to go for the runs until it was too late. They hung around, matched England’s score and matched the D/L par score for almost the entire innings, and apart from a brief blitz by Afridi in the last powerplay they never showed any real attacking intent. It was a match in which the result was not decided until a couple of overs before it ended and yet it was never gripping. There were 99 overs played and about ninety of them followed the ‘dull middle over’ pattern. If it had been a Test match it might have been thrilling, but as it was it was just waiting for something to actually happen.

Part of that was the England bowlers who were very good again, Finn turning in his second successive 4-34, but once again losing out on man of the match to his centurion captain. Jimmy Anderson, however, who I suggested should not play in ODIs took the vital wicket of Afridi in what turned out to be a wicket-maiden. I still say Jimmy should not play ODIs, or at least seldom play. My point about him needing to be fit and firing in Tests has not changed, but he showed today just how talented he is.

I always think that ODIs should be played before Tests in a tour as to do otherwise is often anticlimactic, as we saw with the series against India last summer and the Ashes before that, but I think England will be particularly ruing that the Tests came before the ODIs on this tour. England played Saeed Ajmal much better today, partly due to practise and partly due to the format demanding that they attack a bit more and not having men around the bat. If the ODIs had come first they would have got their practise in the less important matches and they might have learnt the value of positive play before now. I don’t think it will be changed in the near future, but it is something at which I think the ECB ought to look.

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.